Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Black Wolf on May 03, 2009, 09:44:40 am
-
Dunno if this is of interest to international peeps, but the election-promised Australian Government White Paper on defence is out (article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416704-5013871,00.html), Full paper (http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf), and it's kind of a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, we're getting 100 F35s, which is more than I was expecting them to go for. The debate over whether it was the most suitable for us was never really ging anywhere - as cool as it is, the F22 is too expensive and too difficult to get out of the US, and there was never any chance of going Russian or Euro when we're joined at the hip (militarily) with the Americans. Plus we get a dozen new subs to replace the (already pretty awesome) Collins class, some new frigates, combat helicopters etc. etc. Sadly, no mention of the cool little Canberra class LHDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_Landing_Helicopter_Dock) we're supposed to be getting, so they may have been scrapped - I can't find confirmation one way or the other, but I really hope not - we need better force projection capabilities, and these would provide that through proper blue-water navy capabilities.
My problem with it basically stems from the fact that a lot of what went into the tactical planning seems to be about making sure we can defend ourselves from China. And the reality is, any conventional war between China and us (inevitably resultin in China vs the US) that doesn't start really soon - as in, the next decade or less) is going to end up going nuclear before most of that kind of equipment is going to be of any use. And even if it didn't, the scale of the Chinese military and their recent push towards modernization means that they're likely going to be able to roll us over without really to much effort (assuming no US/Euro intervention, which I think we can safely assume is unlikely in the extreme). I would have preferred the focus be on fighting non conventional, assymetric wars - they're the wars of the 21st century - the days of mechanized warfare between major states ended with the advent of the nuclear ICBM. Unfortunately, we're not currently properly equipped to fight these kinds of wars, and the way things are now, it doesn't look like we're going to be for the next several decades at least.
Any of the other aussies (or foreigners for that matter) have an opinion on this?
-
I also expected much less F-35s and all I can say is that the Australian Defense is to become one of the most impressive ones in the world. That's a good new, I have many parents in Australia and they'll be safe from external attacks... :nod:
Any particular reason why Australia would fight China?
-
It's of interest to me :nod:
I've applied for the defence forces for next year - in a grad position.
There's some very interesting stuff in both the Navy and the Air Force.
-
Any particular reason why Australia would fight China?
Not really. It's a combination of things - mostly China is the strongest nation in our immediate region, and people still have a lot of leftover cold war fear (Communist = the enemy), so it's natural to want to compare military strengths with them. Also, their growth as the likely next superpower and their military modernization has people scared that they might have expansionist ambitions. Plus I've heard suggestions that the stance may be related to domestic issues - Rudd's been getting hurt a bit lately by the opposition claiming he's too close to China, and too pro-China, so putting up a strong, China focussed military plan suggests that's not true (though personally I don't think it's been an issue long enough to have had a really significant impact on something like this).
-
The Canberra class is pretty cool...but my impression is those are really only suitable for huge-scale amphibious operations against a major power. Australia's current naval operations are smaller in scale and usually regional, around East Timor and the like, and future operations are probably going to be against nation-less organisations like terrorist groups.
In the event of war, the intention looks like operations as part of a coalition where the Americans would supply most of the heavy hardware and logistics.
-
The Canberra class is pretty cool...but my impression is those are really only suitable for huge-scale amphibious operations against a major power. Australia's current naval operations are smaller in scale and usually regional, around East Timor and the like, and future operations are probably going to be against nation-less organisations like terrorist groups.
In the event of war, the intention looks like operations as part of a coalition where the Americans would supply most of the heavy hardware and logistics.
I see the Canberra class acting as more of an "instant-base" - park it off the coast of wherever you want to be, with a few ANZACs or Hobarts to defend it (if needed) and you have a launching platform for helicopters (both transport and combat), a fully equipped hospital, transport facilities, room for a thousand troops and all their associated equipment - something like would be ideal for large scale amphibious assault, or as the first respondent to a humanitarian crisis or as the first stage somewhere like the Solomons. We have the Kanimblas that can do similar things, but on a smaller scale (450 troops vs 1000, 4 choppers vs. 16+), plus they're 40 years old. Canberras would replace them with something better equipped for major peaceful deployment but that also has a agressive capability if needed.
-
What's with the carrier-fighter fetish? Both the Canadian and Aussie AFs commissioned both the Hornet and the Lightning.
-
Saw this this morning. Thought it was pretty interesting news for a nation that I usually think of as being pretty quiet in the sense of international conflict (don't worry, I know you Aussies know how to have a good time otherwise.)
My problem with it basically stems from the fact that a lot of what went into the tactical planning seems to be about making sure we can defend ourselves from China. And the reality is, any conventional war between China and us (inevitably resultin in China vs the US) that doesn't start really soon - as in, the next decade or less) is going to end up going nuclear before most of that kind of equipment is going to be of any use. And even if it didn't, the scale of the Chinese military and their recent push towards modernization means that they're likely going to be able to roll us over without really to much effort (assuming no US/Euro intervention, which I think we can safely assume is unlikely in the extreme). I would have preferred the focus be on fighting non conventional, assymetric wars - they're the wars of the 21st century - the days of mechanized warfare between major states ended with the advent of the nuclear ICBM. Unfortunately, we're not currently properly equipped to fight these kinds of wars, and the way things are now, it doesn't look like we're going to be for the next several decades at least.
Any of the other aussies (or foreigners for that matter) have an opinion on this?
A nuclear war is a lot less likely than you think, even if somehow, Australia and China got to ****slinging.
While Australia is a nuke-free state as far as I know, all of its major allies that have been listed, have plenty. While this of course doesn't eliminate a nuclear threat, it does "demote" a nuclear threat against Australia to your basic MAD doctrine of paradoxical nuclear counter-deterrence. What the defense strategy is really focusing on, is basically beefing up Australia's tactical capabilities for the next generation of warefare, in order to demand more political power, rather than designed to counter specific threats.
The F35 is the future generation of affordable fighter technology. Not only that, but it's joint-development and integrative systems means it will be par for any US / NATO aligned state within ten years. The F35 will be to them as the Vyper is to BSG. But really though, what the F35 means for the Auzzies is power-parity against whatever new MiG China has or will be getting. The subs, while I don't know specifics about, are what I would imagine as more of the same strategy.
Really, the reason for the upgrade in "conventional" arms is to raise the bar of limits on international political power. Everyone has a limit. While China is unlikely to invade mainland Australia anywhere short of WWIII, it is much more likely to get up into arms about some island / territorial resource, shipping rights, fishing rights, etc. At that point, with the brunt of the Chinese Navy and Airforce staring Australia down, nuclear allies or not, Australia would have a much stronger voice if it has shiny new jet fighters and submarines to back up its demands vs. yesteryear's F-18's and Harriers. Also note that simply being more self-reliant means the Aussies don't need to ask for as much support from their allies, which allows them international political capital to spend elsewhere.
Any particular reason why Australia would fight China?
Not really. It's a combination of things - mostly China is the strongest nation in our immediate region, and people still have a lot of leftover cold war fear (Communist = the enemy), so it's natural to want to compare military strengths with them. Also, their growth as the likely next superpower and their military modernization has people scared that they might have expansionist ambitions. Plus I've heard suggestions that the stance may be related to domestic issues - Rudd's been getting hurt a bit lately by the opposition claiming he's too close to China, and too pro-China, so putting up a strong, China focussed military plan suggests that's not true (though personally I don't think it's been an issue long enough to have had a really significant impact on something like this).
Also equally likely as an explanation for the boost in these particular areas of the military - domestic politics.
-
THREAD HAS TOO MUCH COLORS
-
What's with the carrier-fighter fetish? Both the Canadian and Aussie AFs commissioned both the Hornet and the Lightning.
They're multi-role, the ADF being smart are also a load of cheap, cheap bastards when it comes to buying new tech. We simply don't have the money to buy fighters by specialization, the F/A-18 can dogfight, engage in SEAD/function in a ground-attack role, which saves money spent training on pilots and aircraft. Besides, we haven't had to defend the country directly since WWII, and even then it was a primary naval/air game between us and Japan with the US and British slotting themselves in between. It's not that we don't have enough pilots or anything, being an ADF pilot here is highly competitive, out of the 1000-3000 applicants they receive each year, they pick 100 pilot candidates, and those are distributed between the three services, the air force typically taking the majority, that only being 30-40, and anyone whose left gets mailed a letter and are open to apply the next year.
While China is unlikely to invade mainland Australia anywhere short of WWIII, it is much more likely to get up into arms about some island / territorial resource, shipping rights, fishing rights, etc.
The only half decent reason I can anticipate getting into a confrontation with China over is Uranium, which we supposedly have in stock, and we already give them that anyway.
It's of interest to me :nod:
I've applied for the defence forces for next year - in a grad position.
There's some very interesting stuff in both the Navy and the Air Force.
And me, are you going to attempt the Officer Selection Board?
-
The F35 is the future generation of affordable fighter technology.
It's also costing several times more than they said it would, and there is some question as to how effective it relly would be.
Not really. It's a combination of things - mostly China is the strongest nation in our immediate region, and people still have a lot of leftover cold war fear (Communist = the enemy), so it's natural to want to compare military strengths with them. Also, their growth as the likely next superpower and their military modernization has people scared that they might have expansionist ambitions. Plus I've heard suggestions that the stance may be related to domestic issues - Rudd's been getting hurt a bit lately by the opposition claiming he's too close to China, and too pro-China, so putting up a strong, China focussed military plan suggests that's not true (though personally I don't think it's been an issue long enough to have had a really significant impact on something like this).
Never underestimate the Yellow Peril.
-
My problem with it basically stems from the fact that a lot of what went into the tactical planning seems to be about making sure we can defend ourselves from China. And the reality is, any conventional war between China and us (inevitably resultin in China vs the US) that doesn't start really soon - as in, the next decade or less) is going to end up going nuclear before most of that kind of equipment is going to be of any use. And even if it didn't, the scale of the Chinese military and their recent push towards modernization means that they're likely going to be able to roll us over without really to much effort (assuming no US/Euro intervention, which I think we can safely assume is unlikely in the extreme). I would have preferred the focus be on fighting non conventional, assymetric wars - they're the wars of the 21st century - the days of mechanized warfare between major states ended with the advent of the nuclear ICBM. Unfortunately, we're not currently properly equipped to fight these kinds of wars, and the way things are now, it doesn't look like we're going to be for the next several decades at least.
Any of the other aussies (or foreigners for that matter) have an opinion on this?
This concept of "rolled over" you have is more than a little insane. China lacks the means to project power as far as the Australian coast and will continue to do so for the next decade. (Probably the next three decades.) They still don't have the means to even throw sizeable ground forces across the Taiwan Straights. The plan is solid; the truth is between the Aussie version of SAS and the fact the country traditionally produces superb infantry they are already well-equipped to fight assymetric wars. They have close ties to the US and the Brits and are fully abreast of the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq. The unsqueaky wheel needs no grease. The Army could do with new mechanized equipment (last I checked they were still using old German Leopard 1s as their MBT) but that is a secondary concern.
The situation is then air/naval. Several countries in the region are not totally stable (Indonesia comes to mind) and are attempting to upgrade their militaries. Australia has traditionally been a leading member of UN missions in the region (this is probably one of the guiding ideas between the Canberra). I rather hope some of their F-35s is going to be operable from those LHDs, though, because even if they do have new AAW escorts in the pipleline for them, nothing quite works as well as fighter cover and the F-35 (like the Hornet) has short legs.
China is the natural opponent to test against, as it amounts to the worst-case. (And they pay the military to be prepared against the worst case.) If China can be dealt with, India is not an issue. If India is not an issue, then the various smaller states in and around the Indian Ocean and Java Sea are not going to be trouble.
-
As far as F-35s flying off LHDs goes, I severely doubt that's going to happen unless it becomes an absolute neccessity, and AFAIK the F-35s being purchased are not capable of VTOL (Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read the paper). The last carrier we had was 30-40 years ago IIRC, and the Navy lacks the manpower to muster enough hands to man a carrier sized vessel. LHD's supporting F-35's is interesting, but 100 F-35s means around 3-4 squadrons, and based on previous squadron movements, I think it's safe to say they'd be stationed at RAAF Williamtown and RAAF Tindal, as they support the current Air Combat Wing Squadrons.
EDIT: Scratch that, Williamtown is a TERRIBLE place to station fighters, our current layout is border-security oriented, it looks like Airfields in the Amberley area (to the north) would be the place these fighters are going to be sent, which IS a reasonable place for them to be. However our current airfield positioning is ****E, we have two bases in the Northern Territory and none of them support F/A-18s, and only one squadron of F-111's, the craft the 35's are going to be replacing. The majority of our Fighter Squadrons are to the East/North-East, which is not that good a position for them to be.
-
Be a pity to see the last of the Varks go...
-
Thanks for posting. Been very interested to read up about Australia's military sitation for a variety of reasons. I was interested to see that the F-35 was going on to be purchased...and even the number was a bit surprising at 100.
I really like the F-35 in concept but there are some issues with it which I wonder what will be made of it in the end. Its about as capable as the F-16 in terms of fighting capacity plus it has stealth, and data integration, and sophisticated sensors that the previous generation of jets never had. The big problem is that its stealth isn't that spectacular, its range isn't fantastic, and its up against some very potent competition - namely the Su-30/35 and derivatives. Not to mention the PAK-FA which will probably be the not quite as good but allot cheaper Russian counterpart to the F-22.
The F-35 is going to do allot of things pretty well...and in the US force mix it fits perfectly (F-22 dominates and the F-35 is called in to do whatever is needed). The F-35 may also be fairly useful in asymmetric types of warfare as the sensors it has are apparently a step above (all classified and whatnot so they never really say what it can do) and could be used in a number of ways. Its a bit of a mixed bag...the F-22 is assuredly the best in its class (at an extreme price) for years to come but the F-35's role and success is complicated by so many issues.
Also I believe its still happening that the Super Hornet will fill in the gaps until the F-35s arrive (and probably after too)?
Oh and there is still no true replacement for the F-111 anywhere...the F-15E is sort of there but not all the way. The FB-22 sounds interesting but may just be a pipe dream.
-
I though a squadron was twelve combat ready planes and pilot groups.
-
I though a squadron was twelve combat ready planes and pilot groups.
USAF fighter squadrons are 18 aircraft (and 30+ pilots), though they're almost never deployed as more than twelve at one time; heavy bombers contain 12 to 8. Russia likes "regiments" of 27 aircraft or so. USN squadrons can contain as many as 36 aircraft depending on type.
Pilots can be counted usually at a ratio of slightly better than 2-to-1 with aircraft.
-
Thanks for posting. Been very interested to read up about Australia's military sitation for a variety of reasons. I was interested to see that the F-35 was going on to be purchased...and even the number was a bit surprising at 100.
I really like the F-35 in concept but there are some issues with it which I wonder what will be made of it in the end. Its about as capable as the F-16 in terms of fighting capacity plus it has stealth, and data integration, and sophisticated sensors that the previous generation of jets never had. The big problem is that its stealth isn't that spectacular, its range isn't fantastic, and its up against some very potent competition - namely the Su-30/35 and derivatives. Not to mention the PAK-FA which will probably be the not quite as good but allot cheaper Russian counterpart to the F-22.
The F-35 is going to do allot of things pretty well...and in the US force mix it fits perfectly (F-22 dominates and the F-35 is called in to do whatever is needed). The F-35 may also be fairly useful in asymmetric types of warfare as the sensors it has are apparently a step above (all classified and whatnot so they never really say what it can do) and could be used in a number of ways. Its a bit of a mixed bag...the F-22 is assuredly the best in its class (at an extreme price) for years to come but the F-35's role and success is complicated by so many issues.
Also I believe its still happening that the Super Hornet will fill in the gaps until the F-35s arrive (and probably after too)?
Oh and there is still no true replacement for the F-111 anywhere...the F-15E is sort of there but not all the way. The FB-22 sounds interesting but may just be a pipe dream.
Because having (Plane that's a generation better than F-16s) > F-16s.
Even if the plane that's better still isn't the F-22. And again, the strength of the F35 isn't so much it's bleeding edge technology (don't get me wrong, its 4x better than the F16, but still not a 22) so much as its adaptability and joint design profile. Between the variants ( I didn't bother to check which ones the Auzzie RAF was buying..) they share 80% of the same parts. That's three different planes that fulfill 3 distinct roles, but share 80% of the same parts. That also means they can use *80%* of the same technicians with 80% of the same training, at 80% of the same cost. That might seem silly alone, but looking from the logistics end of running an Air Force, that's a huge deal. Also, way more cost-effective.
You could say, one of the F35's primary attributes is its economy.
-
I though a squadron was twelve combat ready planes and pilot groups.
USAF fighter squadrons are 18 aircraft (and 30+ pilots), though they're almost never deployed as more than twelve at one time; heavy bombers contain 12 to 8. Russia likes "regiments" of 27 aircraft or so. USN squadrons can contain as many as 36 aircraft depending on type.
Pilots can be counted usually at a ratio of slightly better than 2-to-1 with aircraft.
That's mostly the same with the RAAF, I understand, with 3 Squadrons of F/A-18s, 71 F/A-18s and a few of them being conversion trainers it's around 20-24 aircraft a squadron, and 20~21 F-111s including conversion trainers to two squadrons flying F-111s I'd put the structure similar to the USAF's. Pilots are as NGTM-1R said, at a 2-1 ratio to their aircraft, however I deduce from our lack of fighter squadrons than number is hanging between 2-1 and 3-1 due to the squadrons becoming pilot-heavy.
-
As far as F-35s flying off LHDs goes, I severely doubt that's going to happen unless it becomes an absolute neccessity, and AFAIK the F-35s being purchased are not capable of VTOL (Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read the paper). The last carrier we had was 30-40 years ago IIRC, and the Navy lacks the manpower to muster enough hands to man a carrier sized vessel. LHD's supporting F-35's is interesting, but 100 F-35s means around 3-4 squadrons, and based on previous squadron movements, I think it's safe to say they'd be stationed at RAAF Williamtown and RAAF Tindal, as they support the current Air Combat Wing Squadrons.
EDIT: Scratch that, Williamtown is a TERRIBLE place to station fighters, our current layout is border-security oriented, it looks like Airfields in the Amberley area (to the north) would be the place these fighters are going to be sent, which IS a reasonable place for them to be. However our current airfield positioning is ****E, we have two bases in the Northern Territory and none of them support F/A-18s, and only one squadron of F-111's, the craft the 35's are going to be replacing. The majority of our Fighter Squadrons are to the East/North-East, which is not that good a position for them to be.
Agreed about the LHDs, though we'd only need to buy the STOVL rather than VTOL since the Canberras will have ramps (but aparently none of the other equipment needed to run fixed wings). I don't think you're right about where our fighters are now though. I know for a fact that there are Hornets at Katherine, though their combat range makes that kinda pointless, since they only have 300 or 400 kms once they clear Darwin - no long range interception capabilities. CTOL F35s will effectively double that, making them much more practical if housed at Tindal, which is nice. And also, I think the idea is that we'll retire most of the hornets (possibly keeping the 24 superhornets we're getting to speed up the retirement of the F-111s, dunno though) and replace them with F-35s.
The F-35 may also be fairly useful in asymmetric types of warfare as the sensors it has are apparently a step above (all classified and whatnot so they never really say what it can do) and could be used in a number of ways.
It's slated to replaces the Warthog as the American's CAS plane long term, so you'd hope so.
Oh and there is still no true replacement for the F-111 anywhere...the F-15E is sort of there but not all the way. The FB-22 sounds interesting but may just be a pipe dream.
We should have bought F15Es to replace our F-111s without a doubt. We went from a decent but old medium range strike fighter to a bloody carrier based striek fighter, where you're supposed to bring the airfield to the battle :rolleyes:. Ridiculous.
Incidentally, I had another look through and it looks like the Canberras are definitely still coming through. Yay :D
-
As far as Hornet Squadrons go
3 Squadron- RAAF Williamtown
75 Squadron- RAAF Tindal
77 Squadron- RAAF Williamtown
I want to know what the hell Angus Houston was on...
When you say Katherine do you mean Tindal? That's the only base I can think of that's near Katherine, they also have F-111s there IIRC. Yeah, scrapping the hornets sounds financially better but I agree we NEED F-15s. Actually, do you remember that TV Ad about one of our F/A-18 pilots training F-15 pilots in the US? Maybe we could get some lend-lease wise.
-
We should have bought F15Es to replace our F-111s without a doubt. We went from a decent but old medium range strike fighter to a bloody carrier based striek fighter, where you're supposed to bring the airfield to the battle :rolleyes:. Ridiculous.
To be honest, the F-15E is also not a suitable replacement for the F-111. The F-111 was designed with a strategic bomber function in mind; the first of the new generation of strategic bombers that is more or less stuck at at the B-1 now (and the Tu-160 too, I suppose). It was very long-ranged and had about twice the payload. If you had wanted to replace the F-111s, I would have suggested the most recent version of the Tornado. I hear the Russians have something comparable too...FN-32 I think.
-
When you say Katherine do you mean Tindal? That's the only base I can think of that's near Katherine, they also have F-111s there IIRC.
According to the base's website (http://www.airforce.gov.au/bases/tindal.aspx) there're no F-111s at Katherine (I meant Tindal but couldn't remember the name).
As for the F-15E vs. the F-111, you're right that it's not the perfect replacement - it's got a slightly smaller combat radius and carries less mass. But there's really nothing around that properly equals what the F-111 could do in a modern plane (hell, if they weren't getting so old, I'd be keen to keep 'em running - they've apparently got a better record in terms of maintenance hours vs flight hours than our hornets do). None of the russian stuff really has the range (which in a country the size of Australia is of paramount importance), and going Russian makes no sense in an air force that's far more likely to be deployed with the USAF than any Russian equipped AF. Going to something like the B1 would maybe be better in terms of pure range/ordnance (of course, it's a bomber), but it's too big and unwieldy for Australia's requirements. And I just flat out disagree about the Tornado being a better plane for the job.
One thing I think we can both agree on though is that with 3 billion AUD to buy 24 F-111 replacements as part of a $6.5 billion program, you don't buy Super Hornets if you expect to maintain your capabilities.
-
Thanks for posting. Been very interested to read up about Australia's military sitation for a variety of reasons. I was interested to see that the F-35 was going on to be purchased...and even the number was a bit surprising at 100.
I really like the F-35 in concept but there are some issues with it which I wonder what will be made of it in the end. Its about as capable as the F-16 in terms of fighting capacity plus it has stealth, and data integration, and sophisticated sensors that the previous generation of jets never had. The big problem is that its stealth isn't that spectacular, its range isn't fantastic, and its up against some very potent competition - namely the Su-30/35 and derivatives. Not to mention the PAK-FA which will probably be the not quite as good but allot cheaper Russian counterpart to the F-22.
The F-35 is going to do allot of things pretty well...and in the US force mix it fits perfectly (F-22 dominates and the F-35 is called in to do whatever is needed). The F-35 may also be fairly useful in asymmetric types of warfare as the sensors it has are apparently a step above (all classified and whatnot so they never really say what it can do) and could be used in a number of ways. Its a bit of a mixed bag...the F-22 is assuredly the best in its class (at an extreme price) for years to come but the F-35's role and success is complicated by so many issues.
Also I believe its still happening that the Super Hornet will fill in the gaps until the F-35s arrive (and probably after too)?
Oh and there is still no true replacement for the F-111 anywhere...the F-15E is sort of there but not all the way. The FB-22 sounds interesting but may just be a pipe dream.
Because having (Plane that's a generation better than F-16s) > F-16s.
Even if the plane that's better still isn't the F-22. And again, the strength of the F35 isn't so much it's bleeding edge technology (don't get me wrong, its 4x better than the F16, but still not a 22) so much as its adaptability and joint design profile. Between the variants ( I didn't bother to check which ones the Auzzie RAF was buying..) they share 80% of the same parts. That's three different planes that fulfill 3 distinct roles, but share 80% of the same parts. That also means they can use *80%* of the same technicians with 80% of the same training, at 80% of the same cost. That might seem silly alone, but looking from the logistics end of running an Air Force, that's a huge deal. Also, way more cost-effective.
You could say, one of the F35's primary attributes is its economy.
Oh you're definitely right on many of those points....overall its a good economic plane for all of those reasons. The problem is that the F-16 is past its prime and despite the F-35 being more effective....neither are likely to be as effective according to many experts as the Su-30MKI which India has (and China has a similar model - and others will probably get something similar later on) and is considerably less money.
On the upside the F-35 will be able to carry a lot of different weapon types, a lot of weapons at the same time (if you forget the stealthy part of it), its has all of the fancy new AWACS/datalink stuff, its stealth is present if not super, and it has the most powerful jet engine yet devised. I'm just curious what its legacy will be in 30 years time....success or flop.
-
Thanks for posting. Been very interested to read up about Australia's military sitation for a variety of reasons. I was interested to see that the F-35 was going on to be purchased...and even the number was a bit surprising at 100.
I really like the F-35 in concept but there are some issues with it which I wonder what will be made of it in the end. Its about as capable as the F-16 in terms of fighting capacity plus it has stealth, and data integration, and sophisticated sensors that the previous generation of jets never had. The big problem is that its stealth isn't that spectacular, its range isn't fantastic, and its up against some very potent competition - namely the Su-30/35 and derivatives. Not to mention the PAK-FA which will probably be the not quite as good but allot cheaper Russian counterpart to the F-22.
The F-35 is going to do allot of things pretty well...and in the US force mix it fits perfectly (F-22 dominates and the F-35 is called in to do whatever is needed). The F-35 may also be fairly useful in asymmetric types of warfare as the sensors it has are apparently a step above (all classified and whatnot so they never really say what it can do) and could be used in a number of ways. Its a bit of a mixed bag...the F-22 is assuredly the best in its class (at an extreme price) for years to come but the F-35's role and success is complicated by so many issues.
Also I believe its still happening that the Super Hornet will fill in the gaps until the F-35s arrive (and probably after too)?
Oh and there is still no true replacement for the F-111 anywhere...the F-15E is sort of there but not all the way. The FB-22 sounds interesting but may just be a pipe dream.
Because having (Plane that's a generation better than F-16s) > F-16s.
Even if the plane that's better still isn't the F-22. And again, the strength of the F35 isn't so much it's bleeding edge technology (don't get me wrong, its 4x better than the F16, but still not a 22) so much as its adaptability and joint design profile. Between the variants ( I didn't bother to check which ones the Auzzie RAF was buying..) they share 80% of the same parts. That's three different planes that fulfill 3 distinct roles, but share 80% of the same parts. That also means they can use *80%* of the same technicians with 80% of the same training, at 80% of the same cost. That might seem silly alone, but looking from the logistics end of running an Air Force, that's a huge deal. Also, way more cost-effective.
You could say, one of the F35's primary attributes is its economy.
Oh you're definitely right on many of those points....overall its a good economic plane for all of those reasons. The problem is that the F-16 is past its prime and despite the F-35 being more effective....neither are likely to be as effective according to many experts as the Su-30MKI which India has (and China has a similar model - and others will probably get something similar later on) and is considerably less money.
Just curious, what are your sources on naysaying experts? I've seen a lot of newsreports, but an admittedly hasty search and read through has only produced this for me: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/15/317309/us-defence-policy-and-f-35-under-attack.html
Even in that article, the negative report of the F-35 came from people who 1) aren't pilots 2) weren't using real simulations and 3) using extreme situations. I.e. the F-35 gets destroyed when it goes against 28 Chinese Migs. Well duh, the 35 only carries four A-to-A missiles.
-
Black Wolf: Oh yes my bad, both F-111 squadrons are based at Amberley
28 CHINESE MIGS! That angers me beyond words that people would think that's a SERIOUS scenario, it's highly likely that situation won't even happen in real life. There are a whole host of reasons why that would never happen. The F-35 isn't an uber-fighter or anything, it's a multirole aircraft, and theoretically and oversimplified you could almost say F-22s are in place to escort F-35 formations while they make their run on the target in the 21st Century. Three "regiments" (guy obviously isn't a pilot OR in the military) of Su-27s are NEVER, I repeat NEVER going to be in the air at any one time. As much as some racist people like to think, asian tacticians are NOT stupid, no-one would ever deploy ALL of their forces with no reinforcements or reserves. Military leadership workshops (that I've had experience with) stress the importance of responding to a threat with the appropriate force, you just wouldn't sortie squadrons upon squadrons if there's only <6 craft approaching your shore. Sure they'll be destroyed, no doubt about that, but it just isn't tactically and logistically feasible. If that happens to be a scout force and these guys are all heading back and an actual strike force appears. "Oh Sh*t" moment. People in these command roles take those kind of things into account, at most I'd say one squadron of aircraft deployed against a threat of that size, ideally you'd be going for a 1-2 to 1-3 kind of numbers regarding the defending force, once you have numerical superiority you lose what's known as a "Target Rich" environment and your extra fighters start doing more harm than good (colliding, getting in each others way), it's a known fact that Taiwanese officers will know. Bottom line being it would NEVER happen.
-
Now, what would have been funny was if Australia had really got a large piece of white paper, written 'No Invaders or Cold-Callers' and stuck it over the outback, as kind of a defence policy mixed with a Sun-screen...
-
Dilmah - I'm pretty sure China has more than 28 MiGs, so it wouldn't be their entire force, nor a region's entire force. But you are correct in that the number is ****ing excessive. You probably wouldn't see that kind of number of MiGs in one combat sortie short of a massive international war, WWIII, or an alien invasion. I definitely hope not to counter six F-35s. However, if that's the point the article is trying to make, that it's "doable" to down six 35's with 28 MiGs and cost effective to do so... well.. ****. It's like making the argument that the F-35 isn't the F-22. Again, no ****. If that's the kind of proportional force that's needed to defeat the F-35, and that worries you, you either need to get a grip, or start writing bigger checks for those 22's.
-
Sticking a smaller version onto a kangaroo and taking a picture of it before distributing it between the higher echelons of the Australian Defence Force would've been funnier :P
Knight Templar: Yeah, but the way it was put made it sound like 28 MiGs was the maximum number defending the Taiwanese Straights, which was probably every frakking MiG that could get there in 30 minutes or less, and yeah I agree with you. We just don't see big wings anymore, no need.
-
Three "regiments" (guy obviously isn't a pilot OR in the military)
That's what they call 'em, regiments. Just like the Russians. He's not that crazy.
-
Ah I see, looks like I need to do my research a little more carefully :P