Can't turn, Can't climb, Can't run: F35 problems

[mnewbery]

@derekliston @Marty_d Your recent posts have some valid points which I don't wish to diminish. Below is a counterpoint for some consideration

 

Everyone who has contributed to this thread (a dreadful thread in my opinion, but here I am) is aware that the history of the F-111 was plagued with public complaints and epithets like "lemon" "Expensive capability we will never use" "vanity purchase" and many others that were worse. I don't care that the F-111 could fly from Darwin close to dark on Friday night at pretty much sea level, bomb Jakarta into a nuclear wasteland and be back in time for breakfast.

 

Its on the public record that the Indonesians did care and they were scared.

 

The same people who were saying bad things about the F-111 were the loudest when the decision to scrap the platform in favour of the F/A-18 was handed down. This can't be a coincidence. The people who wont he argument were using Energy-Maneuverability theory to support their argument.

 

The F-111 was a capability for a war, theatre and battle that no longer existed. By 2001 conflict had moved from conventional kinetic attacks where force over match was a very real consideration to very asymmetric (think "guerilla") warfare where the battle tactics focussed on drawing the enemy to expend vast resources on engaging with you while not doing the same. Some of these examples include having small highly mobile SAM sites and more sophisticated autonomous platoons equipped with RBS-70  or similar and then finding a way to sustain these forces in the field whilst remaining geographically dispersed so they couldn't all be taken out by a small number of anti-radiation missiles

 

The F-111 was never going to be a match for this sort of early network centric warfare, let alone what we have now ... 20 years later.

 

Just a few advances worth mentioning in that period of time which will contribute to the conversation and explain why product X was chosen over product Y:

 

1. IFF Mode 5 is a pain to integrate but someone thought it was a good idea to have it on pretty much everything including the MANPADS, tanks and anything else that can get shot at or bombed, or do the shooting or bombing. That cost a lot but product X came with all that stuff wired in and it was the only one, a saving of about $10M per example when measured over the entire NATO Defence forces. This feature pretty much ends the possibility of friendly fire. The $10M is my opinion, not a public number. Even if its $1M per example, that is a lot of jet fuel for training

 

2. Link 16 and later variants of battle field communications. The F-22 doesn't have this feature still, as far as public information goes. A saving of about $6M per example in my opinion. I believe the F-22 can only communicate using encrypted data via a relay between it and an AWACS, then back to the "non F-22" next to it

 

3. Sensor fusion. Product X has it baked in (space, wiring, generators, antennae) because it was designed for network  centric warfare. Product Y predates the concept

 

4. JHMCS. Works with sensor fusion so its a job lot. Other platforms have helmet sighting but can't display the sensor fusion available through network centric warfare

 

5. 360 x 360 degree Missile Launch detection system and auto chaff/flare dispensers

 

6. High fidelity networked flight simulation that was designed at the same time as the aircraft then updated as faster hardware and networks became available. This allows for NATO squadrons to play out likely scenarios and turn issues (terrain, force over match including millions of fly tomato's mythical carrier borne cheap Chinese drones in the South Pacific, GPS denial etc) to their advantage

 

.... and finally

 

I've said it before but it took 20 years for people to figure out how best to use the F-111. Australia got its F-111s in 1973 so do the math on that. The F-35 first flight was 2006 and Australia got its first look at their own F-35 at Avalon 2019. Australia was never not going to get a fifth generation fighter, it was just a matter of which one. Even if the F-35 turns out to be a total bucket of garbage .... even then ... not buying and learning to use then sustain a fifth generation fighter will put Australia behind the rest of the world by decades in terms of friends and adversaries and in terms of tools, technology and tactics.

 

The new war is already here, choosing not to participate isn't an option

 

 

[onetrack]

Every "new" war is a vastly different war from the previous one - and each "new" war is a massive learning and development curve, to counter the "new" systems the enemy has devised.

 

In the next war, F-35's won't even get off the ground. Drones will be the way the war is carried out, armoured war robots will be everywhere, and more war action will be carried out at computers based in hardened bunkers, than ever will be carried out by ordinary soldiers on the ground, or in the air, by manned aircraft.

 

The greatest threat to participants in the next war, is who will have the technology to unleash massive EMF bursts to destroy electric power facilities, and who will have the ability to destroy GPS satellites in space, thus "blinding" the enemy.

 

 

[kgwilson]

As an aircraft it can't match anything in the Sukhoi SU27 to 35 family. Indonesia has SU35s more than a match for the FA18s. The new SU57  is likely to be everything the F35 should have been and more with real capability. Clutching on to the coat tails of Trumps mob only benefits them. In the event of a major issue if there is no benefit for the US it won't bother. The real issue is "are the latest generation of fighter/attack aircraft relevant in todays world of long range super accurate missiles, drones etc."

 

As for the billions being spent on obsolete submarines that don't seem to have a real purpose, what logic is there to that decision other than to suck up to the frogs.

 

 

[mnewbery]

new SU57  is likely to be everything the F35 should have been and more with real capability

 

... which is only one part of the equation. The other two parts are to be able to fight the platform and sustain it. This is one reason the Russians don't have combat deployed aircraft carriers. At least one got sold/given to the Chinese. Aircraft carriers are quite hard to fight well and the Russians just gave up on it

 

The real issue is "are the latest generation of fighter/attack aircraft relevant in todays world of long range super accurate missiles, drones etc."

 

...which aren't combat deployed because they can already be confused, disarmed and decoyed, aren't that reliable in combat and are only super accurate in comparison to the missiles they replaced. Both sides already know that. Once those issues are dealt with, these missiles and/or drones will need to be tested and those tests can't be hidden. Putins nuclear powered hypersonic missile made it 22 miles before a crash in 2018 and nothing has happened since. NOTHING! Stability control issues during hypersonic flight haven't been solved (nor will they ever IMO, the suckers generate a glowing plasma cloud at the pointy end FFS plus they have a nasty habit of melting in flight). Something else to consider, the Middle East Theatre isn't the Pacific and doesn't pose those threats.

 

EMF bursts to destroy electric power facilities, and who will have the ability to destroy GPS satellites in space, thus "blinding" the enemy.

 

We've had nukes for 70 years now. EMP hardened combat systems have existed for a while.

 

So lets say we have a nuclear powered hypersonic space deployed laser toting Artificial Intelligence Stealth Drone waiting ... just waiting for the command to ... do what?

 

While governments figure out what to do with the new trinket on their noisy sabre, the platforms that are combat ready today are what will be used. The UK Navy was scared witless of the Exocet missile. It was the one thing they could not counter during the Falklands war. They deployed anyway and ran what they had. Some things don't change. One thing that doesn't change is estimating and accepting combat losses during conflict

 

 

[mnewbery]

As for the billions being spent on obsolete submarines that don't seem to have a real purpose

 

...other than to keep an eye on others warships others submarines, people smugglers, drug runners, pirates, belligerents messing with undersea cables, polluters, whales and those hunting the whales, illegal fishers, enviro-terrorists and the odd oil rig. No I agree its a waste of time and money. Not to mention keeping the other submarines away from our ships and ports

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

As submariners say:

 

there are only two types of vessel- submarines and targets.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Speaking of submarines, to have a credible force available, we need lots of them because they seem to spend most of their time in port. Another problem is crew availability. We hear that the navy can't get enough people to crew their existing small fleet, so doubling the fleet will require lots of new crew...and lots more money.

 

 

[spenaroo]

submarines are one of the very few secret forces still in operation.

no one really knows where they are and what they do.

 

The most highly decorated boats aren't even public knowledge till they are retired.

 

if you want a good example of this, google submarine collisions. amazing how many have occurred between foreign submarines in peace time.

 

Collins class is still quieter then any of the American subs - downfall of nuclear is they are always pumping water to cool the reactors.

 

which is why the American's were so happy to design the propellers for it. they want the shared intelligence it can gather

 

 

[willedoo]

... which is only one part of the equation. The other two parts are to be able to fight the platform and sustain it. This is one reason the Russians don't have combat deployed aircraft carriers. At least one got sold/given to the Chinese. Aircraft carriers are quite hard to fight well and the Russians just gave up on it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Varyag is a story all on it's own. The Russians didn't sell it because it was in the too hard basket. They couldn't sell it because it didn't belong to them. The Admiral Kuznetsov (the current oil burning Russian rust bucket) was commissioned before the Soviet Union broke up, but the Varyag was still under construction in Ukraine when the Union went belly up and they ran out of money to complete it. It became the property of Ukraine after the dissolution and they didn't have the money to even maintain the part built ship so after about ten years they sold it.

 

I think it was a Dutch tug with a Philippine crew that had the contract to tow it to China. Turkey wouldn't allow it through the Bosphoros for safety reasons, it couldn't go back up the river in Ukraine, and there was nowhere to moor it in Sevastopol. So the tug towed it around and around the Black Sea for six months until the Turks finally let them through. The tow line broke off Greece and it nearly ran aground on an island before they got hold of it again. Then when they got to the Suez Canal, the authorities wouldn't let them through because it was not under it's own power. It had to be towed via Gibraltar and around the Atlantic to China in the end. The Chinese didn't do their homework very well.

 

 

[Terry Anderson]

Why buy them second hand? You can get 4 for the price of 1 F35. The Flanker is also much faster, flys much higher, is far more manoeuverable with a far greater weaponry payload and apart from that has been in production for years and was a development of the original SU27 Flanker so has a great pedigree. India has them & Indonesia is getting them. The F35 is just too late, too heavy, too expensive & isn't even in production yet with a total development cost so far much larger than the entire Australian economy.

The biggest problem is, you are not thinking like a politician i.e. How can I stuff it up by spending the most amount of money? I do have to say, it was pretty impressive at the Edinburgh air show.

[phantomphixer]

Just imagine the money that would be saved if future fighters did not have to be designed to carry humans. No more expensive pilot training. No more calling off a mission as "too dangerous". It's coming soon, it's already happening. Today's fighter pilots may well be the last. Sad.

Who will we claim our carton of beer from when it has a heavy landing?

[Methusala]

Then came the news that the 5th generation techno-marvel coming out of the US MIC could not even fly at sustained supersonic speeds (just as a reminder, normally the concept of “5th” generation not only implies the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound, it also implies the ability to do so (for a lengthy period of time) without even the use of afterburners, in the so-called “supercruise” mode!).

[Old Koreelah]

Can't find a date for this news item, but it doesn't seem like a vote of confidence in the F-35 if the USAF is buying fifty year old fighters.

 

https://www.flyingmag.com/story/aircraft/air-force-orders-f-15ex/

[Kyle Communications]

This is what we should have bought but the yanks wont sell them to anyone..not even the Israelies

 

[Old Koreelah]

I sure hope our Air Force keep their Super Hornets operational until long after the F-35 proves its worth.

[onetrack]

Our top condition Super Hornets are being sold back to a Yank company (for peanuts, no doubt), to be used as decoys for the USAAF fighters.

The company buying them is probably doing Toyota leaps at their win - particularly as the FA-18's are being fully reconditioned over 3 or 4 years, before being handed over! They also come with all their spares and tooling!!

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32464/australia-to-sell-retired-f-a-18-hornet-fighters-to-private-aggressor-firm-air-usa

[Downunder]

Some are also being sold to Canada as front line fighters......

We should have kept them and just bought less lemons (F35's)....

[Old Koreelah]

Is this a case of Australia getting the worst deal -again-or just bribery and corruption?

[Downunder]

Is this a case of Australia getting the worst deal -again-or just bribery and corruption?

If we get rid of the f18's we HAVE to make the 35's work irrespective of the cost. ....

So some politician can turn around and say "see, nothing wrong with the f35"....

[onetrack]

Looks to me just like regular Defence and Govt incompetence in operation again.

 

And of course, there's that particularly nasty "end-user" sales agreement clause relating to the U.S. having total control over where you can dispose of ANY American-built military items, of ANY type or model - even simple things like engines.

 

With U.S. built Fighters, Uncle Sam tells you exactly who you can sell them to, and who you can't - even when they're only fit for scrap.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C

[Old Koreelah]

If we get rid of the f18's we HAVE to make the 35's work irrespective of the cost. ....

So some politician can turn around and say "see, nothing wrong with the f35"....

...and they'll use secrecy legislation (which already has draconian punishment for any whistleblowers) to ensure we, the dumb voters will never find out what a balls-up they made of it.

[kgwilson]

I'd have bought Sukhoi SU35s. Not as stealthy but faster, more manoeuverable & you get 3 for the price of 1 F35. Both Generation 5 aircraft & there is a lot of development of Gen 6 aircraft happening including the British Tempest which will outclass everything else according to experts. I don't know why they are continuing to bother. It takes 10 to 15 years to get from concept to service & in the meantime pilot less aircraft are appearing in droves.

[onetrack]

It takes 10 to 15 years to get from concept to service & in the meantime pilot less aircraft are appearing in droves

 

And right there is why the F-35 is going to end up the greatest waste of Defence dollars ever seen in this country. Technology is changing so fast and Remote Warfare, AI and Robots are going to become the way the wars of the future are fought.

I'll also wager the primary aim of the future war-mongers will be to knock out satellites and disable electricity grids. The F-35's will be as useful in 2035 as a Gloster Gladiator was in 1944.

[kgwilson]

I agree. The F35 concept came from the JSF original program to replace the Harrier in the 80s. They stuffed around till the late 90s when Lockheed Martin & BAE became principal partners later joined by most Nato countries & Australia & after colossal sums of money were poured down the drain it finally flew in 2006. After numerous fu#$ ups there are now about 500 flying, 35 years after the concept was initiated with the program expected to top $1.5 Trillion.

[Methusala]

Can a 100 ton aircraft really disappear without trace into a steel column encased building? The linked story is told by very experienced jet transport pilots and throws real doubt on the official story of the WTC attacks.

https://newspunch.com/cia-pilot-presents-evidence-that-no-planes-hit-towers-on-911/