mnewbery

The fourth generation fighters generally don't have vectored-in-forward-flight thrust as standard. The fifth generation aircraft (almost all of them) have everything that the F/A-18 E/F and F-15 can hang off the outside (LANTIRN and missile launch detectors for example) built into them from the factory and not hung off the outside. The 5th generation aircraft (again almost all of them) are built with upgrades to pretty much everything ... but especially the radars and engine(s) in mind ... at the factory. On the inside of the airframe, with room for even more sensors an antennae. The F-35 can fly without refuelling or extra tanks between Williamstown and Tindal while carrying a mission payload. The F/A-18 can't for two reasons - it has smaller tanks and an extra engine. The 5th generation aircraft have better cruise drag generally as a direct result of not hanging stuff off the outside. Ironically, buy the 4th generation aircraft plus all the knick knacks that would give it the same all weather capability as something more contemporary and the price rapidly approaches the cost of the F-35 ... unless you don't buy knick knacks for every airframe. If you did that, then there would be compromises in-theatre and it would still be fourth generation knick knacks. Nobody has yet mentioned the high bandwidth Link 22 (Talon HATE for the F-15) that allows a formation of fighters to share sensor and operational data. The 4th generation fighters will have to decide what to leave behind in order to hang yet another knick knack off the outside in order to use this. The F-15 (circa 1976) and F/A-18 (circa 1999) are still being built and the last F-22 entered service in 2011. Having seen the cockpit of the F-35 compared to the F-15, the F-15 would do well for an all glass cockpit but that would be a mammoth task as the Koreans found out: In 2016 approximate unit prices $USD: F-22 Raptor $150M each (no longer available) F/A-18 without any knick knacks $60M E/A-18G without any knick knacks $70M F-15 SE stealth model $100M F-15 E with no upgrades $31M F-15 E with upgrades to what South Korea have $100M, still no dangly knick knacks F-35A any colour as long as its grey $98M+ whatever happens next. Note that the F-22 and the F-35 share engine parts (the hot section in particular for the F135 and the F119) so they have a good idea how the engines will go. The F-35 has just ticked over 52,000 hours from the start of testing until March 2016. One engine failure was recorded in 2013 whish resulted in a hollow blisk exploding at takeoff causing a fire. The new design replaced the blisk with a solid one and some fingers got pointed at the titanium supplier. Engine upgrades are already being tested by the manufacturer (Pratt) in the expectation of 7% more continuous thrust and a much lower maintenance cost. Meanwhile back in F/A-18 land...

One interesting point that came from the briefing: When two 5th generation combatants enter visual range the most likely outcome is that both will launch multiple missiles and both will be destroyed and that this will consistently happen very early in the engagement.

Article in The Toowoomba Chronicle http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/residents-spy-the-darling-downs-from-cockpit-of-fo/2964390/

Going back to post #120, the F-35 is only one tool of network-centric warfare. It would be apt to describe the F-35 as a flying laptop because it does nothing particularly well but a lot of things OK. Network-centric warfare has only been around since 1996 and E-M theory since 1964. It took a further 20 years to understand the implications and application of E-M theory. Network-centric warfare is in its infancy. It may be argued that the Americans are still maturing their doctrine (how to fight the asset effectively) for the F-22. Some of the developments made for the F-35 have made their way back into the F-22 as improvements. The F-35 may be considered as a flying sensor fusion display unit that contributes its own view with the benefit of some altitude, some speed and some stealth. One key component is JHMCS also used in the F/A-18. Some of the features on the F-22 are also available for the F-35 and Australia won't be able to learn how to use, maintain or inter-operate with the F-22 features (and NATO forces) unless they train in the F-35. This will be the case whether the F-35 sees combat in the hands of RAAF pilots or not, whether it is an effective war fighter, or not. LRIP or not. Training aircraft only, or not. The F-35 will never fly alone - in that sense it will be deployed in collections about the same size as whatever one tanker can service. So about five F-35s per tanker. Because of this there will also be an AWACs which has already been discussed in earlier posts. Add to this the space born, ground and human intelligence plus drones (including autonomous satellite linked ground sensors chucked by the SAS out of a Hercules the night before) and it rapidly becomes less of an argument about "can't turn, can't climb" and more about "whoever has the most toys wins". Learning that environment and being successful in it requires practise. Flying the F-35 against a F-16 in a limited air-air scenario and losing dismally is all part of that process. The lesson is "don't be that guy". They are still finding out what the flying laptop is best at. Clearly its not turning or climbing. Yawn. It took 15 years for the RAAF to figure out what the F-111 meant to regional stability and why, although (it may be argued) the Indonesians cottoned-on to its argument ending abilities much sooner. The F/A-18 was brought in to replace the F-111 in 2007 and only did so operationally in 2010. Err, that was 6 years ago... I propose what we the Australian tax-payer have here is an opportunity to learn what 21st century battlefields hold in store for us and what it means to from an Australian point of view. From there Australia can get back to building its own skills and experience, electronic surveillance/counter surveillance and warfare assets. Alternatively Australia can decide its not worth the cost and keep buying someone else's. This is the price of not keeping up with the rest of the world in these areas. We now need to pay A LOT MORE to catch up. Here are some questions: Will the Russians teach the RAAF how to fly, fix and fight an SU-35 or will they just hand the keys over, saying "GLHFWTS" as they laugh all the way back home and shut down the assembly line? Will Saab and Volvo (yes Volvo make the engine) share their upgrades or will they starve the RAAF of parts like what happened with another Australian purchase? Will the RAAF be able to milk the F/A-18 (still in production) long enough to be able to bring a 5th generation fighter that isn't the F-35 up to IOC? Will the RAAF be able to recruit new pilots at all if they canned the F-35 purchase today and only bought drones? These same sorts questions await the Army now they have decided to walk away from the ARH some time in the near future. It could be argued no ARH would have guaranteed no new Army pilots for a generation. Doing nothing didn't appear to be a selectable option. Anyone who says this is a simple discussion is clearly poorly informed. But, good on you for having a crack at it. For myself, I will be at an F-35 briefing very soon learning from actual pilots what its strengths and weaknesses are. Not from this forum.

Without oil, nobody will get anything. Also people forget that the coal and sheep aren't in the main street of a coastal town. Invade away, I say. Then lets see how many people actually want to farm and mine for their new captors

So let me get this right so we are all on the same page. Australia has coal bauxite, copper, wheat, sheep, beef, LNG, assault rifles, bullets and uranium which the rest of the world wants and can't get unless the Australians have imported transportation fuel to give it to them. Also Australia exports education, financial services and technology like Wi-Max and agricultural patents. Australia can't make its own boots, fan belts, cars, clothes or other things that go into the Great War Machine. Someone comes along and says "no imported oil for you". How long do you think it would take the people the coal, copper and iron ore to get really grumpy and make the oil flow again? A serious answer please or go back and actually read statements from ASPI, the Lowy Institute, even Crikey dot com dot au. Argue with them, disagree with them. Not me I don't care. The F-35 is just one one asset in a multi-level, multi decade force posture review involving space and cyber warfare, diplomacy and future capabilities as yet un-imagined. I will continue this thought in my next post. I think something glaringly obvious in this thread got missed

Insurance companies never cover acts of war on any policy but you already knew that didn't you

What I do or do not invest in is none of your business

Chickens just hatched http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/03/airnorth-begins-wellcamp-operations/

For those wishing to see field conditions, the web cameras are up most days. 24 hours a day but check the time stamps on the images to be sure View the Lone Eagle Flying School website or the cameras directly at http://Http://59.167.162.75 which updates automatically every four minutes

No. I'm not. Nobody cares

EP- 3 aircraft by Yuri Ermakov polycarbonate. Assembling , flights over river Kama.

Another article here: http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/02/troubled-tiger-set-for-early-retirement-new-light-helicopter-for-special-forces-on-the-way/

And now the audience can ALSO say F_T also knows nothing about the relationship between the cost of AvTur in Australia and airport activity at Wellcamp. Because there isn't a relationship as these charts show. In fact, AvTur sales by volume and therefore turbine aircraft movements have been remarkably un-affected by AvTur price changes over the last 10 years because that particular fuel is almost all imported and the Australian currency tracks up when oil prices go up. http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=120&currency=aud&commodity=crude-oil-brent https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/av_fuel_sales.aspx#anc_avtur Please only post on things about Wellcamp in this thread. However in the spirit of free speech I do love a BS riddled analogy about where eggs and certain posters' opinions come from. Next time I'll use a flash light and really enjoy the show. In a different thread please.

More than 20 flights per week from 14th March. From little acorns, do great oaks grow

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/02/24/qantaslink-increases-flights-to-wellcamp/

Oscar from post #29 see post #2

http://barryosullivan.com.au/about/

This website suggests the raw data came from RA-Aus http://www.orangeflighttraining.com.au/index.php/news. More info on the source of the data here: http://proaviation.com.au/2014/11/23/get-on-with-it/

Bex your point is well taken. My post was about CASA having a history of ignoring ministerial directions and getting away with it. This is actually a more extreme version of disobedience than being threatened with a senate enquiry, then being the subject of one AND EVEN THEN ignoring the directions to implement the recommendations from the enquiry. I have no suggestions for Senator O'Sullivan other than good luck. If I come up with something I'll go see him myself because I drive past his office in Canberra most days. This isn't some soulless machine, this is the behaviour of individual people inside CASA. Who they are, I have no idea.

Like that's never been tried before Senator Barry O'Sullivan... http://proaviation.com.au/2013/04/06/to-hell-with-the-rules/ http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/329724-senate-inquiry-into-casa-16.html

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/next-world-speed-record-180956002/ 278 Hp for about 2 minutes to climb 3000 metres out of the somewhat modified Lycoming IO-360. http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes The FAI website is really slow, plus it is a real time sucker looking at the records. Rare Bear used over 3,700 Hp to go 528 Miles per hour. Anequim did 269 mph on less than 1/10th the power. Rare Bear was/is a 1944 designed F8F Bear Cat mated to a Wright R-3350. Technology and aircraft design have come along a bit... Does anyone remember any of the Reno unlimited racers using nitrous oxide to get more power?

A bit of research has yielded O-200 mods allowing for 110 up to 135 Hp. In some cases the acro pilots were spinning O-200s over 3500 RPM and the Reno racers over 4000 RPM. TBOs were in the double digits at those settings. Getting 220 Hp from a 180Hp IO-360 for a crack at an FAI record doesn't seem unreasonable especially if the aircraft is going to a museum shortly after. How fast do you want to spend?

Cláudio Pinto de Barros founded a school in Brazil at the age of 25 in the 1960's. In three months of 2015 the schools designs broke 23 FAI records. http://www.flyingmag.com/anequim-project

Air North bookings delayed somewhat. No explanation as to why the schedule change was delayed http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/wellcamp-airport-melbourne-cairns-tickets-sale/2891047/