mnewbery Posted March 19, 2016 Posted March 19, 2016 Has anyone compared the graphic in post #42 with the MAKS 2011 or Paris Air Show 2013 footage ? Notice any differences?
willedoo Posted March 19, 2016 Posted March 19, 2016 Here's the original clip that the gif image in post#42 was taken from, starts at 2.23:
fly_tornado Posted March 23, 2016 Author Posted March 23, 2016 so we (the australian people via our senate) had an inquiry into the Australian F35 program The Joint Strike Fighter program was bedevilled by a "conspiracy of optimism" in its early phase and such an ambitious project is unlikely ever to be repeated, a leading defence analyst has said. But Andrew Davies, senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that despite delays and cost overruns, the JSF or F-35 Lightning II plane remained the best option on the world arms market for Australia's future air combat. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joint-strike-fighters-program-ambitious-project-unlikely-to-be-repeated-20160322-gnogna.html#ixzz43hhZ1L2S Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
fly_tornado Posted March 23, 2016 Author Posted March 23, 2016 part 1 http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=298206&operation_mode=parlview part 2 http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=298265&operation_mode=parlview
willedoo Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 The interesting thing in the future will be the development of the 6th. Gen. fighters and how what they learned from the F-35 programme will impact their future way of doing things. As they say in the article, a one size fits all programme is unlikely to be repeated. At the moment, it's the first time that the U.S. has had only one design in development. Russia and China both have a light fighter as well as a heavy air superiority fighter design on the go, as the U.S. used to have, so it would be reasonable to guess that the U.S. will revert to that combination with new 6th. generation programmes.
kodiak74 Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 The submissions made to the inquiry are available online here -> http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions Some interesting reading. 1
fly_tornado Posted March 24, 2016 Author Posted March 24, 2016 this is gold Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee 18 February 2016 Joint Strike Fighter Inquiry Department of the Senate PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Chairman and Committee Members, AUSTRALIA’S TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety Armed Forces Denmark. In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational requirements for new fighter aircraft. In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England. To make the simulations as realistic a as possible, we participated with operational pilots. On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries. We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two. In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter. In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed. My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter. It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition. It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability. Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better Joint Strike Fighter Submission 35 performance than those who we were given permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter. We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command. Due to these conditions and having insight into what else was going on, attempts were made from the Danish side to get an operational pilot to the Joint Program Office but due to some special circumstances it at that time failed. With my speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that at least some of the air to air simulations that have been carried out, in no way give a true and fair view of the Joint Strike Fighter in the air defence role. I consider it to be a disaster if simulations as mentioned above are accepted and thus forms part of a possible decision to choose the Joint Strike Fighter. Yours Sincerely, Anker Steen Sørensen Denmark Joint Strike Fighter Submission 35 http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6bea818e-e2a7-4ad3-9c0e-109348f93be9&subId=409097 2
willedoo Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 Some F-35 related photos: Martin-Baker test sled for the MK.16 US16E seat. F-35 Gen.3 helmet.
Guest SrPilot Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 If you're interested in reading about the F-35 "Pentagon Tour," check out: http://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/03/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-pentagon-tour/126901/?oref=d-topstory
Sloper Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Did you hear the new joke? What do you call a F35? A target. regards Bruce
Marty_d Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Did you hear the new joke?What do you call a F35? A target. regards Bruce What do you call an F35? Proof that you can sell those dumb Aussies anything.
fly_tornado Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 Danish gov are buying the F35 based on war nerd's talk http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35-beats-every-other-fighter-jet-in-scandinavian-air-1776511111 1
mnewbery Posted May 21, 2016 Posted May 21, 2016 Post #144. JSF and pretty much every other multi role fighter won't be sent into contested airspace where the engagement described was possible. So change the comment from F-35 to F/A-18 F or even Su-25 vs Su-35 and the comments would still be valid. Again, the F-22 is air-to-air, the F-35 is not. The point is and will always be "use the advantages and avoid the pitfalls" of the scenario. And again, the only time an F-15 will out perform an F-35 in terms of "pure E-M" is when both are configured for AN AIRSHOW DISPLAY. Don't take my word for it, read up and be sure the people aren't feeding you their own special diet of BS. Believe what you want to believe. The AESA radar is rubbish and will fail most days within 4 hours, required commonality between variants knobbled the F-35A which should have whipped the F-16 in every way from day one and so on it goes. Some of it will probably be true for a few years yet. Other issues are already fixed and work continues away from the scornful public gaze. I'm really sorry for the eastern bloc fanbois and the sinophiles that their fave twin engine Neo-liability-fighter didn't get up. I'm really sorry the earliest an SU-35 would even be ready for export is stated by the manufacturer to be 2020. I'm really sorry that the scandal ridden Gripen is the same price as the F-35A once the features are taken into account and that purchasing Gripens risks damaging trade relations with USA. I'm really very sorry that purchasing Gripens would expose Australia to the same spares issues that dogged two other high profile European military airframe purchases. These inconvenient facts aren't going away. Time to make do. 1
nong Posted May 21, 2016 Posted May 21, 2016 Post #144. JSF and pretty much every other multi role fighter won't be sent into contested airspace where the engagement described was possible. So change the comment from F-35 to F/A-18 F or even Su-25 vs Su-35 and the comments would still be valid. Again, the F-22 is air-to-air, the F-35 is not. The point is and will always be "use the advantages and avoid the pitfalls" of the scenario. And again, the only time an F-15 will out perform an F-35 in terms of "pure E-M" is when both are configured for AN AIRSHOW DISPLAY. Don't take my word for it, read up and be sure the people aren't feeding you their own special diet of BS. Believe what you want to believe. The AESA radar is rubbish and will fail most days within 4 hours, required commonality between variants knobbled the F-35A which should have whipped the F-16 in every way from day one and so on it goes. Some of it will probably be true for a few years yet. Other issues are already fixed and work continues away from the scornful public gaze. I'm really sorry for the eastern bloc fanbois and the sinophiles that their fave twin engine Neo-liability-fighter didn't get up. I'm really sorry the earliest an SU-35 would even be ready for export is stated by the manufacturer to be 2020. I'm really sorry that the scandal ridden Gripen is the same price as the F-35A once the features are taken into account and that purchasing Gripens risks damaging trade relations with USA. I'm really very sorry that purchasing Gripens would expose Australia to the same spares issues that dogged two other high profile European military airframe purchases. These inconvenient facts aren't going away. Time to make do. You mean the Ruskies can deliver SU35 by 2020. That is an impressively short lead time compared to F35. Thanks for pointing that out.
Himat Posted May 21, 2016 Posted May 21, 2016 Post #144. JSF and pretty much every other multi role fighter won't be sent into contested airspace where the engagement described was possible. And if air defence of own territory is the task? That is a possible scenario for at least Norway and probably Denmark as prospective buyers of the F-35. Also to the enemy the point is and will always be "use the advantages and avoid the pitfalls" of the scenario. Are the F-35 fighters then not to be sent out when own airspace get contested? Next, do the same apply for bombing missions? The F-35 will not be sent into an area with a credible air defence system? Against low frequency, “passive” and multi static radar the F-35 “STEALTH” is not that good, at least not that good that the air defence cannot put a waypoint guided missile close enough to the F-35 to get missile seeker look on. As you say; "These inconvenient facts aren't going away.", then what to do?
mnewbery Posted May 21, 2016 Posted May 21, 2016 Correct. What the boffins finally decide to do will come out of various warfare schools. But when you are beat, you are beat. Sending the wrong warfighter when you know it's wrong is the behaviour of another century. Here is the original claim for export of the Su-35 / PAK FA. In 2013 it was claimed the exports would be ready in 2025 not 2020 as stated in my post #150. Russian experts upbeat about export prospects for the PAK FA
Himat Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 Correct. What the boffins finally decide to do will come out of various warfare schools. But when you are beat, you are beat. Sending the wrong warfighter when you know it's wrong is the behaviour of another century. But buying the wrong fighter is obviously advocated this century too. The F-35 do from what can be found in unclassified information have one good virtue, the radar. Low observability in part of the radar spectrum is a plus, but that is a feature that is being contested. For ground attack use the F-35 will then soon have to switch to low level. Will it then work any better than the Tornado that was purpose built for low level work? You state that the F-35 is no air to air fighter, then what is it (going to be)?
mnewbery Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 Read post #123. The main thing it appears to be to the scornful public is candy to attract more people to the RAAF. No argument about that from here.
willedoo Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 Correct. What the boffins finally decide to do will come out of various warfare schools. But when you are beat, you are beat. Sending the wrong warfighter when you know it's wrong is the behaviour of another century.Here is the original claim for export of the Su-35 / PAK FA. In 2013 it was claimed the exports would be ready in 2025 not 2020 as stated in my post #150. Russian experts upbeat about export prospects for the PAK FA You're getting your aircraft mixed up. The PAK FA is the T-50. It hasn't as yet received an Su designation. The Su-35 is a different beast, a 4++ gen fighter based on the original Su-27/30 design. The T50/Pak FA is the 5th. gen. stealth fighter.
mnewbery Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 Agreed. It is my understanding the first export date is the same.
willedoo Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 I haven't read any export date for the Su-35, but it's got a slight jump on the PAK FA, being already operational (in small numbers, and only recently), but maybe no sooner for export. Their debut in Syria would have been a joint roadtest and a show-off to potential customers. I remember reading where they estimated the value of future sales gained by the Syria showcasing to be ten times the cost of the involvement there. Sales in the context of all their new gear used there - Su-35, Su-34, S-400's and various new missile variants.
mnewbery Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 “This course has given me great insight as to how our future F-35 pilots will transition directly from the Hawk to the F-35A.” Australia’s third F-35A pilot takes to the skies | Australian Aviation 1
Old Koreelah Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 I haven't seen this doco posted here; shows some major differences in fighter plane philosophy between the Russians and Americans. I known which one I prefer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3fr02KWI_o 1
mnewbery Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Please tell me that doesn't include the philosophy of widespread non precision bombing of Syrian civillians?
fly_tornado Posted May 30, 2016 Author Posted May 30, 2016 That is a choice made by the military not the weapons manufacturers but good on you Matthew for standing up for Syrian refugees
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now