EA/18G Growler

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If the US pilot shoots his AMRAAM first he has well over a 98% chance of a victory. US AESA means we see first, we shoot first. In WVR the Rhino will have the advantage thanks to greater situational awareness and the enhanced features of the AIM-9X. The Flanker pilot will be so busy trying to figure out where he is in the battle space the Rhino driver would have already decided on an attack strategy and implemented it. The layout of Su-XX cockpits are prehistoric even with upgrades. Higher alphas are irrelevent if you play to your strong suites, just keep him from getting below you and his alpha ability is worthless. That's what we like to call playing on the waves. If you keep him down on the deck you will slow him down giving you the advantage as he tries to jimmy you into tone. It won't work as the Rhino's drag surfaces makes it the best slow speed manuvering jet aircraft in the world.

98%????? Against who??? Iraqie MiG 29's??? How can you just put out a number like that? In what situation? at what range? against what opponant? against whcih missile systems? i have a hard time beliving generalisations like that.

AIM 9X is a great missile system, but so is the R74. It has helmet sights to. If he can look at you his missile is targeted and he can fire. Somehow i dont see him groping around in the dark. He can get his pointed at you quicker and therefore get a shot off due to the flankers ability to generate higher angles of attack. Sure if you get the flanker to play your game, at slow speed, and below you. But your betting your life on your ability to do that.

I don't see why you think kenetic energy is important at BVR. If the Flanker is charging into an AIM-120D at full speed he is foolish. When engaging at BVR you want to track the aircraft at the engagement radius of the weapon system and outrun the inbound threat. Rather than charge in it is best to slow to rail launch speeds and wait for the bogey to enter range. The inferiority of the flankers radar will make his detection of your launch come rather late. The only thing that possibly saves him is punching the burners and hope he gets out of range. If he is smart he will try and make you expend your BVRAAM loadout and then close for the kill. The probabilities after firing two AIM-120Ds of getting a kill are 180%+ if he stays within range. In conclusion no trained flanker pilot is going to charge a Rhino armed with AIM-120Ds. He will try and make you waste them.

90% kill ratio at maximum range???? I have a hard time beliveing that. Within the NEZ yeah maybe or if the Flanker just fly's toward the missile shooter. If the shot is at maximum range and the Flanker detects it late he can still outrun it. Anyway the Flanker will detect the SH before maximum launch range of the D, so if the Flanker driver knows what he's doing (and if he's equiped with the R77M) he can set the terms of the engagement. You dont think the ability to fly in and out of you enemy's missile envilope at will is a huge advantage??? Also the extra energy gives your missiles extra range.

I don't understand why everyone is so willing to take Kopp's side when your own Air Chief clearly outlines the reason for buying the Rhinos...

http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2643727

Kopp is not a combat pilot and is quick to dismiss the testimony of RAAF and USN aviators alike. I think you should take that into account when deciding what you think will be best for your air force.

Its this argument of who you belive again, not lets look at what they are saying.

 

[rjmaz1]

1. IF the F35 is allowed to set the terms of the engagement, i.e. the Flankers fly around in circles (which would be the case if they were on CAP) then the F35 holds the advantage. Thats the only time the F35 will be able to sneak up on its enemy. However when the F35 is reacting to the SUXX and is acting as an interceptor then we have a different ball game. In order to intercept the SUXX's they will have to be on after burner which will increase the detection range for the IRST significantly, especially if its being cued by ESM picking up an emmision, and the effectiveness of IR guided missiles. And if the F35 is attempting to get to an effective launch point before the Flanker reaches its lanch point for an ASM then i dont like its chances.

I strongly disagree.

The F-35 will hold the advantage even when defending.

As the SU-XX will be coming towards Australia.. If the F-35's are flying offsure the SU-XX's have to fly through the F-35's. The F-35's do not have to hit the burners. Both the F-35 and SU-XX have similar cruising speeds.

The F-35 can engage at will due it superior Kinetic performance over the SU-XX. Yes i said superior. The F-35s will have so much fuel they can dash up to high supersonic speeds, the SU-XX will not have enough fuel to keep up. If the SU-XX's try to run away.. the F-35 will chase and shoot it down or the SU-XX will run out of fuel.

The SU-XX's will not know where the F-35's will be on CAP so they wont know where to direct their IRST. The F-35's will sit infront of a Wedgetail and the wedgetail will detect the SU-XX"s from a few hundred kilometeres away. So even when defending the F-35's know where the SU-XX"s are but the SU-XX"s dont know where the F-35's are.

This same thing cannot be applied when the SU-XX is defending. Any AWAC aircraft will not detect the F-35 until its too late. The SU-XX's will sit infront of the AWAC to keep the AWAC safe. If the distance is too great the SU-30's will be within shooting range of the F-35's. If AWAC is closely behind the SU-XX then they are putting the aircraft at risk.

So the F-35's will always set the terms of engagement and will not have to "react" to the SU-XX.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Theres a major problem with your strategic thinking boys.

1. You only look in a 5 to 10 yr timeframe. Possibly the SH and definatly the F35 will be in RAAF service for 30 years. China and India currently dont have the motive or the capability to truely project power in SE asia or into the sea air gap. However does this ussumption hold true for 2022-2025??? Because the desisions we make now we will have to live with unltill at least this time. The strategic situation can change a hell of alot in 20yrs. Anyone remember what the world looked like in 1987?? A whole lot different from now. However just because the PLAAF and the IAF lack the motive or capability in 2007, your all content to assume that the this situation will not change by 2017 or 2027, especially given the masive expansion in military capability and economic terms in both of these nations. So the fact that neither of these threats truely constitute a threat now is used by many members to justify any deficiencies in capability the RAAF will suffer in this timeframe. Very short sighted thinking IMO.


2. As i have said 5 times before the chances of a regional war with any of our regional neighbors is less than minimal. But the fact that this can be said for india or china is used by some members to rebutt the threat of the capabilities being sought by these nations. The threat of a war with Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Buruni, Singapore, or anyone for that matter is negligable. But if we apply the attitude some members have towrd india or china we could scrap the combat air wing, close down JORN, sell off the collins, and most of the surface fleet for that matter, becuase their use in the defence of australia is so unlikely it doesent justify talking about it let alone the billions of dollars spent. You plan for middle case, prepare for worse case. Your all planning for best case and preparing for middle. Are the chances of australian aircraft, or australian units for that matter, facing the PLAAF or IAF without big brother USAF in that particular battlespace in the next 30 low? Yes. Are the chances of the colins ever being used in a defence of australia situation low? Yes. But that doesent mean you dont consider, plan for, and aquire the capabilities needed to adress such a situation. If we dont need to consider china or india, why do we operate JORN or the Colins??? Its a selective aplication of that logic. In an A2A scenario it doesent need to be considered, but in a naval situation it does. Seems like aplication designed to sure up a particular point of view.

3. Your all only looking at a massive invasion of the mainland scenario, not a small regional conflict. What if we had a situation somewhere in Indonesia similar to East Timor, with a pro chinese faction. We intend to send in the troops for a peace inforcement mission, the pro chinese faction wants support from the PLA, who starts supplying them. We dont take to kindly to Chinese intervention in the region, PLAN send a CBG into the theater for air cover. Yanks dont want to get to involved for fear of sparking a larger conflict over a "Timor Leste". In such a situation, i.e. not all out war, we cant just hit the CBG with a huge maritime strike, or the colins, but RAAF F35/SH would have to take on navalised Flankers, both with AEW&C's, and it would be the RAAF fighting at extended range. Is this kind of regional conflict likely? No. But its alot more likely than a shooting war with indonesia or anyone in the region for that matter.

If you start factoring situations such as these into the equation, you are coming up even more "empty handed". Firstly the ET operation was a UN operation, the US, UK, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Portugese, Italians, Japanese, New Zealanders AS WELL as us were INVITED into the country. Why China would feel the need to provide opposing air power in such a situation is beyond me. What would be their objective exactly? Preventing anyone from getting INTO the country?

So we are going to "fight" our way through the Chinese carrier group, but not strike the carrier itself, just shoot down their fighters 1 by 1 as they pop up?

Sorry, but the idea that we are going head to head with our "inferior" Super Hornets and legacy Hornets against a Chinese or Indian "Carrier Battle Group" but not be allowed to strike the carrier itself is infantile in the extreme.

Australian maritime strike capability is HIGHLY developed now, it will only improve with the "maritime" version of the JASSM, the introduction of SH, the continued upgrades of the Collins and the introduction of the AWD's.

If we find ourselves in a fight with China where a naval taskforce is within a tactical fighter strike range of mainland Australia and all we're "allowed" to do is send tactical fighters to engage their tactical fighters, we'll have more to worry about then the alleged inferiority of our platforms of choice. Incompetent military leadership for a start.

Something I find completely unbelievable and don't even consider it worthy of discussion. How would ADF honestly be expected to fight it's way through ANY naval taskforce, without employing the range of combat capabilities the ADF has at it's disposal? Tell you what, why don't we start discussing what are we going to do in face of an "Independence Day" styled alien invasion, seeing how our SH's are so ineffective against alien fighter aircraft?

Why do I keep bringing APA up? Because your arguments are carbon copies of their's. I'm wondering if your actually lifting your comments direct from Dr Kopp's analysis. I hope they allow more than 10% of their work to be copied, or else you might find yourself in some legal trouble...

Next you'll be bringing up the threat of Russian "AWACS killers" and rule out Wedgetail as surviving in our region...


Anyhow, getting back to reality, of course we need an ADF prepared to defend our Country against, threats. None of us however have the information available to us to make the kinds of judgements truly necessary to provide for defence.

I trust the ADF leadership. Not a group who have personal financial interests as a prime motivation. Big-E's link to that C4ISR article shows that our leadership ARE aware of the sorts of issues we are discussing at length. That they are confident in the selection of these aircraft is enough for me.

A lengthy read about Australia's air combat group and the effort it puts into our air combat capability can be found here: http://www.anao.gov.au/download.cfm...BB&binary_id=DCA6CBD31560A6E8AA2072050B777400

Even ANAO, known to be often critical of ADF, acknowledges the work of RAAF in maintaining it's air combat capability. The idea that they obviously know what they're doing sufficiently to maintain this capability, their outstanding operational performance (in combat in 2003 and in other operations since) but suddenly can't understand modern air combat, is just rubbish.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I strongly disagree.

The F-35 will hold the advantage even when defending.

As the SU-XX will be coming towards Australia.. If the F-35's are flying offsure the SU-XX's have to fly through the F-35's. The F-35's do not have to hit the burners. Both the F-35 and SU-XX have similar cruising speeds.

Not if you add stand off missiles to the equasion. And the flanker comes will heaps, and a few are quite capable. And with the Al 41F the Flanker will have a much much higher crusing speed.

The F-35 can engage at will due it superior Kinetic performance over the SU-XX. Yes i said superior. The F-35s will have so much fuel they can dash up to high supersonic speeds, the SU-XX will not have enough fuel to keep up. If the SU-XX's try to run away.. the F-35 will chase and shoot it down or the SU-XX will run out of fuel.

mate thats just wrong. With the AL 41F engine the flanker will be able to turely supercruse, even when fully loaded. The F35's top speed is around M1.5 and its engine is designed around sub sonic cruse and super sonic dash, not sustained super sonic flight. This is indicitive of its optimisation as a CAS platform i.e. loiter time. Even with drop tanks and heaps of AAM's (note that to remain stealthy the F35 can only cary 4 AAM's) the flankers T/W ratio will be much better than the F35, even taking drag into account.

The SU-XX's will not know where the F-35's will be on CAP so they wont know where to direct their IRST. The F-35's will sit infront of a Wedgetail and the wedgetail will detect the SU-XX"s from a few hundred kilometeres away. So even when defending the F-35's know where the SU-XX"s are but the SU-XX"s dont know where the F-35's are.

Advanced ESM will cue the IRST, even if ther have the APG 81 off they are still transmiting datalink and audio signals.

This same thing cannot be applied when the SU-XX is defending. Any AWAC aircraft will not detect the F-35 until its too late. The SU-XX's will sit infront of the AWAC to keep the AWAC safe. If the distance is too great the SU-30's will be within shooting range of the F-35's. If AWAC is closely behind the SU-XX then they are putting the aircraft at risk.

If the SUXX are just sitting on CAP then yes i see the whole F35 ambush thing working. I said that earlier. However their stelath is optimized around higher wavelengths, so its detection range when facing AWACS will be higher than a fighter radar, but i guess that also depends on the sophistocation of the radar .

So the F-35's will always set the terms of engagement and will not have to "react" to the SU-XX.

I dont see how you can make that statement given the argument above.

 

[Magoo]

If the US pilot shoots his AMRAAM first he has well over a 98% chance of a victory. US AESA means we see first, we shoot first. In WVR the Rhino will have the advantage thanks to greater situational awareness and the enhanced features of the AIM-9X. The Flanker pilot will be so busy trying to figure out where he is in the battle space the Rhino driver would have already decided on an attack strategy and implemented it. The layout of Su-XX cockpits are prehistoric even with upgrades. Higher alphas are irrelevent if you play to your strong suites, just keep him from getting below you and his alpha ability is worthless. That's what we like to call playing on the waves. If you keep him down on the deck you will slow him down giving you the advantage as he tries to jimmy you into tone. It won't work as the Rhino's drag surfaces makes it the best slow speed manuvering jet aircraft in the world.

I don't see why you think kenetic energy is important at BVR. If the Flanker is charging into an AIM-120D at full speed he is foolish. When engaging at BVR you want to track the aircraft at the engagement radius of the weapon system and outrun the inbound threat. Rather than charge in it is best to slow to rail launch speeds and wait for the bogey to enter range. The inferiority of the flankers radar will make his detection of your launch come rather late. The only thing that possibly saves him is punching the burners and hope he gets out of range. If he is smart he will try and make you expend your BVRAAM loadout and then close for the kill. The probabilities after firing two AIM-120Ds of getting a kill are 180%+ if he stays within range. In conclusion no trained flanker pilot is going to charge a Rhino armed with AIM-120Ds. He will try and make you waste them.

I don't understand why everyone is so willing to take Kopp's side when your own Air Chief clearly outlines the reason for buying the Rhinos...

http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2643727

Kopp is not a combat pilot and is quick to dismiss the testimony of RAAF and USN aviators alike. I think you should take that into account when deciding what you think will be best for your air force.

Big-E - great to see you back...it's been a while.

There's a lot of sense and experience behind this man's words folks.

Cheers

magoo

 

[Tasman]

Theres a major problem with your strategic thinking boys.

1. You only look in a 5 to 10 yr timeframe. Possibly the SH and definatly the F35 will be in RAAF service for 30 years. China and India currently dont have the motive or the capability to truely project power in SE asia or into the sea air gap. However does this ussumption hold true for 2022-2025??? Because the desisions we make now we will have to live with unltill at least this time. The strategic situation can change a hell of alot in 20yrs. Anyone remember what the world looked like in 1987?? A whole lot different from now. However just because the PLAAF and the IAF lack the motive or capability in 2007, your all content to assume that the this situation will not change by 2017 or 2027, especially given the masive expansion in military capability and economic terms in both of these nations. So the fact that neither of these threats truely constitute a threat now is used by many members to justify any deficiencies in capability the RAAF will suffer in this timeframe. Very short sighted thinking IMO.

Hi Ozzy

I agree that much can change in 20 years but so can Australia's defence planning. The ADF tries to project 10 years in its forward planning in a constant rolling program. A minimum level of funding is guaranteed by government for this period (currently a 3% increase in real terms each year). In the event that the strategic situation changes the ADF can modify its long term plan to meet needs identified as a result of those changes. If the threat level increases, defence spending and planning can be adjusted to meet it.

At the present time the government considers that the most likely scenario in which the air combat force will be committed in the next decade is as part of a coalition force as was the case with the FA-18A deployment during the Second Gulf War. The RAAF regards a force of SHs and F-35s as ideal for such a scenario as they would fit seamlessly into a coalition force alongside the USAF, USN and USMC. The US plans to use these same aircraft (supported of course by the rest of their inventory) against all comers during this time frame. They seem very confident that the F-35 and SH will perform very well in any hot situation and in the case of the F-35 in particular they are extremely confident of its capability against the latest Russian and Chinese aircraft for the foreseeable future.

At this stage the RAAF has chosen to concentrate on a single multi purpose type, the F-35, supported by the FA-18F as a bridging aircraft, or possibly as part of a two tier mix. If things change and the F-35, for example, doesn't live up to expectations, the US will no doubt adjust its ideas and so will Australia. We will have a better idea about how the F-35 is going by the time second pass approval is due in 2008. If things go as hoped and the F-35 is a resounding success it may well be that the RAAF, if the strategic situation deteriorates in the years ahead, will still decide to add another asset to its air combat force in the 2020/2030 time period to work alongside it. This could involve a specialist air dominance fighter along the lines of the F-22 and/or a specialist strike aircraft along the lines of the projected FB-22. The experience gained in operating an advanced 4th generation aircraft like the SH and a 5th generation aircraft like the F35, will position the RAAF well for any future growth.

Cheers

 

[Big-E]

98%????? Against who??? Iraqie MiG 29's??? How can you just put out a number like that? In what situation? at what range? against what opponant? against whcih missile systems? i have a hard time beliving generalisations like that.

The combat percentage is 80% from 6 to 30 miles with aircraft ranging from Mig-29s to Mig-25s from Iraq to Bosnia. The AIM-120D has much higher accuracy and range than anything we have ever seen. It is safe to say the numbers will be high. This system is combat proven and is getting better all the time.

The only thing to compare it to is the "AMRAAMSKY" R-77. The only thing this has shot down in a real world scenerio was an An-26 civilian liner that was meant for a helo target drone.

AIM 9X is a great missile system, but so is the R74. It has helmet sights to. If he can look at you his missile is targeted and he can fire. Somehow i dont see him groping around in the dark. He can get his pointed at you quicker and therefore get a shot off due to the flankers ability to generate higher angles of attack. Sure if you get the flanker to play your game, at slow speed, and below you. But your betting your life on your ability to do that.

I don't know why you think the R-74s off boresight is so much better than the AIM-9X... it's not. I will get first look first kill considering I have better situational awareness and a better off boresight system. I have initiative during all phases of engagement. The flankers higher alpha means he can have his nose floundering in the air while I turn beneath and tear his guts out... I just beg him to do it, especially to try the Cobra. nfloorl:

90% kill ratio at maximum range???? I have a hard time beliveing that. Within the NEZ yeah maybe or if the Flanker just fly's toward the missile shooter. If the shot is at maximum range and the Flanker detects it late he can still outrun it. Anyway the Flanker will detect the SH before maximum launch range of the D, so if the Flanker driver knows what he's doing (and if he's equiped with the R77M) he can set the terms of the engagement. You dont think the ability to fly in and out of you enemy's missile envilope at will is a huge advantage???

If the SH keeps his nose pointed at the Flanker he will go undetected for dozens of miles with a reduced RCS. The flanker won't be able to get tone and will have to shoot in the dark. The R-77 is a piece of crap... I'm not too worried about it if I hug the waves. The ability to outpace your opponent is a big draw back of the SH but it's avionics and weapon systems make up for this negative 10 fold.

Also the extra energy gives your missiles extra range.

You can't launch stores on rails at supersonic speeds, the stress would be too great.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Not if you add stand off missiles to the equasion. And the flanker comes will heaps, and a few are quite capable. And with the Al 41F the Flanker will have a much much higher crusing speed.



mate thats just wrong. With the AL 41F engine the flanker will be able to turely supercruse, even when fully loaded. The F35's top speed is around M1.5 and its engine is designed around sub sonic cruse and super sonic dash, not sustained super sonic flight. This is indicitive of its optimisation as a CAS platform i.e. loiter time. Even with drop tanks and heaps of AAM's (note that to remain stealthy the F35 can only cary 4 AAM's) the flankers T/W ratio will be much better than the F35, even taking drag into account.

For starters no SU-30 has these engines. They are under development, and given Russia's well known financial problems, may not ever complete development. E ven Carlo Kopp acknowledges in DT that the engine "may" only give supercruising capability, it has not been tested nor even displayed to the best of my knowledge. It's akin to his supercruising F-111 idea.

Advanced ESM will cue the IRST, even if ther have the APG 81 off they are still transmiting datalink and audio signals.

Audio signals? Damn the Russians have done it again. They've leaped multiple generations of capability and given that the JSF Catbird radar and avionics testing has only JUST got underway it shows how far behind the USAF and USN really are. The Russian's have already outclassed it!

You're right, we really ARE in trouble...

If the SUXX are just sitting on CAP then yes i see the whole F35 ambush thing working. I said that earlier. However their stelath is optimized around higher wavelengths, so its detection range when facing AWACS will be higher than a fighter radar, but i guess that also depends on the sophistocation of the radar .

So now this mythical threat not only has the power projection capability to send tactical fighters on strike missions more than 8000k's away from any possible home base, (unless of course Indonesia isn't concerned about any retaliation against it or "widening of the conflict) but they also have the tanking capacity to send an AWACS along with them AND peform CAP's within our limited strike range?

The USAF took in excess of 50 in-flight tankings during its El Dorado Canyon raids on Libya in 1986 to get it's 15x F-111's (remember their MUCH longer range than SU-30's?) from England to Libya and back (much shorter flight than India or China to Australia), so would you care to explain how India is going to manage this with a fleet of 3x IL-76 Midas tankers with a meaningful fighter force or China with not too many more?

 

[sparta]

aircraft carrier

 

[Falstaff]

Hey guys, Australia is going to get F-22s at last! Go to http://www.defense-aerospace .com and look at the picture! The first of 46 took off from the Eurocopter plant nfloorl:
What a cunning plan to call them NH90 so everybody thinks it's a helicopter.

 

[swerve]

aircraft carrier

How many Flankers does an Indian aircraft carrier carry?

At least India has an aircraft carrier, & replacements building. No sign of China doing much more than examining the technology so far.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If you start factoring situations such as these into the equation, you are coming up even more "empty handed". Firstly the ET operation was a UN operation, the US, UK, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Portugese, Italians, Japanese, New Zealanders AS WELL as us were INVITED into the country. Why China would feel the need to provide opposing air power in such a situation is beyond me. What would be their objective exactly? Preventing anyone from getting INTO the country?

So we are going to "fight" our way through the Chinese carrier group, but not strike the carrier itself, just shoot down their fighters 1 by 1 as they pop up?

Sorry, but the idea that we are going head to head with our "inferior" Super Hornets and legacy Hornets against a Chinese or Indian "Carrier Battle Group" but not be allowed to strike the carrier itself is infantile in the extreme.

Australian maritime strike capability is HIGHLY developed now, it will only improve with the "maritime" version of the JASSM, the introduction of SH, the continued upgrades of the Collins and the introduction of the AWD's.

If we find ourselves in a fight with China where a naval taskforce is within a tactical fighter strike range of mainland Australia and all we're "allowed" to do is send tactical fighters to engage their tactical fighters, we'll have more to worry about then the alleged inferiority of our platforms of choice. Incompetent military leadership for a start.

Theres that narow minded thinking again AD. This scenario doesent have to be in terms that aproximate what happened in Timor. What if we were more or less alone in opposing chinese backed rebeles or a faction? What if the chinese were attempting to supply this faction in order to spread influence??? We would attempt to interdict these suppies, in as peacefull a manner as possible. Chinese rachet up the pressure by sending in a CBG. I dont see whats so infantile about this scenario. Were not shooting at each other. But i'm sure we would have air cover for our troops on the ground. And if things happen to spin out of control and the opposing aircraft engage each other i would find it hard to believe that the PM would authorise a huge maritime strike on the CBG, which i agree would be devistating. This is alot more likely than using the colins and a huge maritime strike to kill thousands of chinese sailors and airmen over a small clash between fighters. IIRC PROC and the USSR had some serious border clashes, but niether of them took drastic action. And i would call sinking a CBG drastic.

Something I find completely unbelievable and don't even consider it worthy of discussion. How would ADF honestly be expected to fight it's way through ANY naval taskforce, without employing the range of combat capabilities the ADF has at it's disposal? Tell you what, why don't we start discussing what are we going to do in face of an "Independence Day" styled alien invasion, seeing how our SH's are so ineffective against alien fighter aircraft?

Your still looking at this through a defence of australia situation. In every conflict, no matter how limited, do the opposing forces use all the means at there disposal??? You seem to think so. It seems historical leaders have for the most part had a tad more restrainet than you though.

Why do I keep bringing APA up? Because your arguments are carbon copies of their's. I'm wondering if your actually lifting your comments direct from Dr Kopp's analysis. I hope they allow more than 10% of their work to be copied, or else you might find yourself in some legal trouble...

Next you'll be bringing up the threat of Russian "AWACS killers" and rule out Wedgetail as surviving in our region...


Anyhow, getting back to reality, of course we need an ADF prepared to defend our Country against, threats. None of us however have the information available to us to make the kinds of judgements truly necessary to provide for defence.

I trust the ADF leadership. Not a group who have personal financial interests as a prime motivation. Big-E's link to that C4ISR article shows that our leadership ARE aware of the sorts of issues we are discussing at length. That they are confident in the selection of these aircraft is enough for me.

A lengthy read about Australia's air combat group and the effort it puts into our air combat capability can be found here: http://www.anao.gov.au/download.cfm...BB&binary_id=DCA6CBD31560A6E8AA2072050B777400

Even ANAO, known to be often critical of ADF, acknowledges the work of RAAF in maintaining it's air combat capability. The idea that they obviously know what they're doing sufficiently to maintain this capability, their outstanding operational performance (in combat in 2003 and in other operations since) but suddenly can't understand modern air combat, is just rubbish.

So this statement would be a bit more accurate then AD...

But if your just trying to undermine the opposing argument by attacking APA it doesent reflect too well on a member as well respected and senior as yourself.

Sure i agree with alot of APA's arguments, because unlike others i wont simply dismiss them because there unpopular, or because sertain members here reguard them as irrelevent, without justifying that dismissal. The parts i have quoted i've sighted incase you're wondering.

You still havent rebutted any of their main arguments. I did ask you to explain exactly how the RCS reduction in the SH can be exploited in a decisive manner, or the advantages in IR countermeasures the SH is suposadly has, but you've yet to do either. In fact you havent actually rebutted any of the points i've made in the last 5 posts, all you have done is place a present set of sircumstances on a future scenario (i know mate you have a hard time dealing with anythig thats not happening right now, or really really soon), or taken cheap shots at APA. If you disagree with thire arguments then rebutt what there saying. But you havent done that at all, what you have done is attempt to tarnish their credibility without dealing with the substance of the argument. Thats not a basis for an informed bedate my friend, thats just mud slinging.

Tassie, Tod and BiG E, i've gotta go away for the weekend so i'll get back to you in a few days. Have a good holiday everyone, happy easter.

 

[Magoo]

How many Flankers does an Indian aircraft carrier carry?

None - they use early model Sea Harriers and have ordered MiG-29Ks.

Magoo

 

[sparta]

china considered and may be building 3 or more i will search out the class (iam fairly sure at least 1 has been built and sea trails underway) but they are looking to force projection. su30 and su37 similar types don't know chinese designation

 

[rjmaz1]

mate thats just wrong. With the AL 41F engine the flanker will be able to turely supercruse, even when fully loaded..

So your quoting the cruising speed of an engine that hasn't even been tested in the air?

T/W ratio will be much better than the F35, even taking drag into account..

Thrust to weight ratio is irrelevent for cruising speed. Drag to weight ratio is the most important. Some of the worlds fastest aircraft have a lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-35.

A fully loaded SU-XX will have one of the worst drag co-efficients. It then needs to use huge amounts of thrust to overcome this drag. That means increased fuel consumption and reduced range. Due to this extra drag acceleration is reduced, top speed is reduced, cruising speed is reduced. The SU-XX now has worse performance compared to the F-35.

Like i said before the conformal fuel tanks on the F-16 produces 12% of the drag compared to having the same capacity fuel tanks under the wing. The F-35 has a massive fuel fraction as if it has massive conformal tanks. Being internally the drag prouced would be less than 10% than if they aircraft was slimmer with less internal fuel.

External fuel uses so much extra drag that in the F-111 case i heard that with 4 external tanks its range does not increase compared to 2 external tanks. This is because the drag on the extra pair of tanks takes away more energy than the extra fuel provides.

So by adding weapons bays and massive internal fuel tanks the thrust to weight ratio reduces but the drag is reduced _alot_

If you removed the Internal weapons bays, and halved the fuel capacity to have a similar fuel fraction to the SU-XX the F-35 would loose thousands of kilo's and probably weigh the same as the F-16. It would then have a higher thrust to weigh ratio than even the SU-XX and supercruise with ease. That would only be in a clean configuration which is irrelevent. Put external fuel tanks and bombs under the wings the aircraft would then travel far slower and have less range than the F-35 today.

Thats why the F-35 will always have equal if not better speed and agility.

Advanced ESM will cue the IRST, even if ther have the APG 81 off they are still transmiting datalink and audio signals..

And this isn't operational and may never be operational ever? How about we add magic to the F-35, the magic will make it win every time!! Sure we may work it out in 100 years but lets pretend its available on the F-35 now so we can give a realistic comparison nfloorl:

If the SUXX are just sitting on CAP then yes i see the whole F35 ambush thing working. I said that earlier. However their stelath is optimized around higher wavelengths, so its detection range when facing AWACS will be higher than a fighter radar, but i guess that also depends on the sophistocation of the radar

Western AWAC's use the same AESA modules as the fighter aircraft.. so the same frequency is used. Do you have a source that says the enemy AWAC's will detect the F-35 earlier, other than the fact the radar has more power?

 

[Magoo]

china considered and may be building 3 or more i will search out the class (iam fairly sure at least 1 has been built and sea trails underway) but they are looking to force projection. su30 and su37 similar types don't know chinese designation

Su-37? Off a carrier??? Sources please!!! :unknown :shudder

Magoo

 

[Big-E]

Big-E - great to see you back...it's been a while.

There's a lot of sense and experience behind this man's words folks.

Cheers

magoo

Thanks for the kind words... the same can be said for you in our respective professions.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Theres that narow minded thinking again AD. This scenario doesent have to be in terms that aproximate what happened in Timor. What if we were more or less alone in opposing chinese backed rebeles or a faction? What if the chinese were attempting to supply this faction in order to spread influence??? We would attempt to interdict these suppies, in as peacefull a manner as possible. Chinese rachet up the pressure by sending in a CBG. I dont see whats so infantile about this scenario. Were not shooting at each other. But i'm sure we would have air cover for our troops on the ground. And if things happen to spin out of control and the opposing aircraft engage each other i would find it hard to believe that the PM would authorise a huge maritime strike on the CBG, which i agree would be devistating. This is alot more likely than using the colins and a huge maritime strike to kill thousands of chinese sailors and airmen over a small clash between fighters. IIRC PROC and the USSR had some serious border clashes, but niether of them took drastic action. And i would call sinking a CBG drastic.

So would I, but once again, what is the point of the air clashes? Why are the Chinese attempting to destroy our aircraft, or vice versa? Once we start or get into a shooting war at that level (the highest level we'd have been in since Korea) the gloves will have to of come off. You want to debate specific comparative aircraft capabilities in an unrealistic operational scenario whilst ignoring, other real world realities.

Wonder where we've seen THAT before?

FYI, we had Collins deployed off Timor during Interfet during a MUCH lower level of threat, yet here we are with a mythical Chinese CBG off the coast, for god knows what reason, we've deployed tactical fighters and presumably at least GCI capabilities, if not AWACS, AAR, GBAD, but we can't use a Collins or 2?

Our PM might be "reluctant" but he's not stupid.

Your still looking at this through a defence of australia situation. In every conflict, no matter how limited, do the opposing forces use all the means at there disposal??? You seem to think so. It seems historical leaders have for the most part had a tad more restrainet than you though.

Check our White Paper my friend. DoA is THE most important role for ADF. I am not naive enough to believe that the ADF deploys it's full range of assets on EVERY single deployment, a cursory look at any of it's deployments confirms this, but this scenario WOULD require a massive deployment on an unprecedented scale of virtually every capability ADF possesses.

However given that you ARE talking about an UNPRECEDENTED operational scenario as far as ADF is concerned, going head to head single handedly against a "first world power" without any outside assistance. Assuming ADF did for some reason not deploy the assets it did even dduring INTERFET, Do you honsetly think the ADF would NOT reinforce itself given the OBVIOUSLY detectable and threatening CBG heading it's way?

Furthermore, have we deployed our peace keeping force into this volatile threat environment entirely by air? God I hope our Tactrans capability has been enhanced significantly by this time...

Any naval transportation of such a force would be provided with escorts, in the timeline you are referring to, this will mean ANZAC's and AWD's. FFG's, ANZAC's and Collins escorted the Interfet force. How can you SERIOUSLY argue they wouldn't in this scenario, but that we WOULD feel the need to deploy air combat power?

FYI, we didn't employ air combat capabilities over ET, until we decided to let the RF-111's conduct a few photo runs. The Indonesians were extremely unhappy about it, so we stopped. But here you think our "more reluctant than me" politicians are going to authorise interdiction of "Chinese supplies". Again for what reason and with what capabilities you fail to state.

So this statement would be a bit more accurate then AD...

They certainly are. Hence my using it as support. Unless of course you believe ANAO is full of corrupt, incompetent and biased people too...

Sure i agree with alot of APA's arguments, because unlike others i wont simply dismiss them because there unpopular, or because sertain members here reguard them as irrelevent, without justifying that dismissal. The parts i have quoted i've sighted incase you're wondering.

You still havent rebutted any of their main arguments. I did ask you to explain exactly how the RCS reduction in the SH can be exploited in a decisive manner, or the advantages in IR countermeasures the SH is suposadly has, but you've yet to do either. In fact you havent actually rebutted any of the points i've made in the last 5 posts, all you have done is place a present set of sircumstances on a future scenario (i know mate you have a hard time dealing with anythig thats not happening right now, or really really soon), or taken cheap shots at APA. If you disagree with thire arguments then rebutt what there saying. But you havent done that at all, what you have done is attempt to tarnish their credibility without dealing with the substance of the argument. Thats not a basis for an informed bedate my friend, thats just mud slinging.

Tassie, Tod and BiG E, i've gotta go away for the weekend so i'll get back to you in a few days. Have a good holiday everyone, happy easter.

I don't dismiss them, but I find a lot of their "strategic rationale" flawed as well as their "analysis" of comparative air combat capabilities. Re-read a Carlo Kopp article sometime. The SH v Flanker in Jan/Feb 07 Defence Today is a classic example and of course very relevant to our current discussion.

He talks about ALF-41 engines on the Flanker. On face value this gives them a theoretical supercruising capability. Whilst clean, he then admits.

"Clean" isn't a very useful tactical option for a fighter I hope you'll at least agree? Certainly the "clean" Indonesian Flankers at present are not much of a threat are they?

AND this is a potential future development. Just like the AESA radar carrying Flankers, and the Flankers with LO improvements, and a new EWSP which "is" going to surpass that employed by SH and so on and so on.

Every capability except sheer aerodynamic performance NOW, is outlcassed by the SH and even Kopp admits this. It is only the "future possibilities" of the SU series that he states are superior. Of course, no mention of the VERY long list of upgrades the SH IS funded to receive is made, nor the enhanced F-414 engine (Kopp compares the Flankers engine to the F-404 in that article; a technical error, the SH uses the more powerful and efficient F-414) NOR the Block III variant that Beoing is developing.

All of which are options the RAAF would likely pursue IF the SH remains in - service.

I am not an air combat professional. My knowledge of the subject is NOT greater than Dr Kopp's, Peter GOON's an especially ADF's.

APA's strategic rationale and the thinking behind is sufficiently flawed to let those who WILL see, the problems within it.

Does Dr Kopp know an AWFUL lot about radars, networks and related subjects. Undoubtedly.

Can Peter GOON discuss the minutiae of F-111 servicing, I have no doubt he can.

Does this give them any more insight into modern air combat and the capabilities required for it than RAAF?

Not a chance in hell.

Enjoy your weekend though. I am off to work in an hour...

 

[Big-E]

china considered and may be building 3 or more i will search out the class (iam fairly sure at least 1 has been built and sea trails underway) but they are looking to force projection. su30 and su37 similar types don't know chinese designation

PLAN has raised the issue of procuring a future carrier force and design concepts are being considered but they are no where near the construction phase much less actually having one built. If you are refering to the Varyag that ship will never sail under it's own power. I guess they could tow it... China does have naval variants of the Flanker but they are not placed on any carrier air wing. I don't believe the Su-37 has been exported as of yet and doubt it would be suitable for CATOBAR ops.

 

[Big-E]

I don't dismiss them, but I find a lot of their "strategic rationale" flawed as well as their "analysis" of comparative air combat capabilities. Re-read a Carlo Kopp article sometime.

I think Kopp sumed up APA's approach rather well with this endnote...

Endnotes:

[1] Spin has a formal definition, in terms of information warfare theory, and is used in this specific sense, i.e. 'A Spin Attack is based on the idea of presenting an unpalatable or other acknowledged or accepted fact, but encouraging the victim to assess that fact from a perspective which is less damaging to the attacker.' Refer Kopp, Carlo, Considerations on Deception Techniques Used in Political and Product Marketing, Conference Paper, Proceedings of the 7th Australian Information Warfare & Security Conference 2006, December 4th-5th, Perth.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2006-03.html

The difference between APA and someone like myself and AD is that we understand the realities of modern warfare and that it takes more than just a good dogfighter to win an air war. I won't go so far as to say there analysis is idiotic but more outlandish, their solutions to the problems are what really irks me. Thinking they can still get F-22s when it is illegal to sell and the idea of upgrading F-111s instead of getting the Rhino are just a couple of the concepts they don't seem to realize are either impossible or absurd. The situations they think Oz will end up being in are no where close to what is likely. They always oversestimate Russian equipment capabilities and the training and doctrine RAAF is going to face. I don't think the direct question should be do I trust Goon/Kopps knowledge of classified materials of Western equipment but do I trust their knowledge of Russian systems. Having studied extensively Russian equipment and strategy I can say with confidence that these gentlemen are playing arm chair generals. Granted they do quite a bit of research but they really don't know what to do with data that is either false or common knowledge. They don't have access to the specs and capabilities that we train with during DACT. The RAAF and USN pilots that APA has discouraged over the years is a clear indication to me that they are afraid their spin zone will be found out. They call APA a non-profit site but it is clearly advocating positions that monetarily would benefit them... it is propoganda.