F-35, smells nice, good paint, chrome mirrors look good.....
Addinall
-----------------------------------------------------
New US-bought Air Force fighters 'inferior'
By political correspondent Louise Yaxley
Posted Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:40am AEST
Updated 7 hours 2 minutes ago
Joint Strike Fighter ...
A United States think tank has declared the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian-made
Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.
--------------------
And Malaysia, and India, and Pakistahn, and Thialand, and Vietnam.
In fact, almost everyone in the district sans NZ....
-------------------
The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a war game and the ABC
has obtained the results.
In bad news for the Air Force, the report says the F-35 has inferior
acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian
and Chinese fighters.
In short, it says the Joint Strike Fighter cannot climb and cannot
run.
It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian-made Flankers is
the F-22 Raptor. But the United States bans these from foreign sales.
The fighters' defenders argue it is not designed for close combat.
-------------------------
This is the point. The F-35 is not designed to do ANYTHING very well.
It is a throwaway. It can't fight in the air, it can't carry enough
to be
a bomb truck and it can't provide CAS to Grunts because the bloody
thing has no belly armour and no gun.....
It is a SUPPORT combat item. If we wish to re-name the RAAF
the 14th SupCoy USAF then fine, buy the stupid things.
---------------------------
The RAND Corporation says a plan B is necessary and points out that if
the F-35 is seen or has to engage an enemy at close range, then it
will be no match for the Flankers.
Earlier this week federal Opposition MP Dennis Jensen called on the
Federal Government to scrap plans to buy the F-35, saying they could
leave the country vulnerable.
-------------------------
Can't we have this bloke for PM?
Please?
-------------------------
"The problem is, if the perceived level of our capability is not very
high some nation might think that it's worth the risk to take us on
for some reason or another given the perceived benefit," he said.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says he is convinced
the Joint Strike Fighter is the best aircraft available, but the
Minister has not released the air combat capability review which
studied the options.
----------------------
Let's have a look at his bank balance then. Lots of money being
shoved around in the current fighter debates.
Mark Addinall.
whogoes
"Addinall" <addi...@addinall.org> wrote in message
news:1d2758f7-8572-4354...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You really don't want Dennis Jenson for PM, he's my local member and thats
bad enough. He sent out a circular before Howard went about how global
warming is a myth etc. Pseudo science from FOXNews.
Addinall
> "Addinall" <addin...@addinall.org> wrote in message
Swap ya. I have Rudd.
> He sent out a circular before Howard went about how global
> warming is a myth etc.
Good. I re-state, "Can we have him for PM?"
Mark Addinall.
> Pseudo science from FOXNews.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gordon Levi
>A United States think tank has declared the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
>aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian-made
>Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.
consideration is the price and quality of the aircraft? Would you
factor in the long term relationship, particularly the military one,
between Australia and the supplier? Could the supplier cripple our
aircraft in a conflict and, if so, how would you consider this in your
choice of aircraft?
Addinall
> Addinall <addin...@addinall.org> wrote:
> >A United States think tank has declared the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
> >aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian-made
> >Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.
>
> Let's agree that this is true.
Agreed then.
> Are you arguing that the only
> consideration is the price and quality of the aircraft?
I would consider these two points as vital in the selection
of new aircraft that will form the ADF.
> Would you
> factor in the long term relationship, particularly the military one,
> between Australia and the supplier?
Yes. When was the last time Australia was at war with Russia,
France or England?
> Could the supplier cripple our
> aircraft in a conflict and, if so, how would you consider this in your
> choice of aircraft?
By retaining complete control of IP concerning the on-going
support of the aircraft, and the sub-systems that make it
fly and fight. Nothing else is a valid contract. The F-35
fails this basic test.
The F-35 is a stupid buy for any number of reasons.
And against our national interest. Unless you feel the
need to re-name the RAAF into 14th SuCoy USAF.
That is the only position the F-35 can consider.
Mark Addinall.
dechucka
"Addinall" <addi...@addinall.org> wrote in message
news:1d2758f7-8572-4354...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Same position we are in now the Super Hornet is no match for the SU 27 ( and
even if the SU 27 don't shoot down the F 18s all they need to do is splat
the tankers as the F 18 doesn't have good range ) and it seems that the F35
is no match for the SU 27 let alone the SU 30
Ferreto
Aint them Rand Corpration experts all commies? Or socialists? Caint lie straight in bed even.
Fo.
"Addinall" <addi...@addinall.org> wrote in message news:1d2758f7-8572-4354...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Mot Adv
"whogoes" .au...
>
> "Addinall" <> wrote in message You really don't want Dennis Jenson for PM,
> Howard went about how global warming is a myth etc. Pseudo science from
> FOXNews.
Lol, whoopie doo.
I'll take Dr Jensen's POV on the matter of the F35 over anyone in the Krudd
governement, ANYDAY.
J.
Addinall
> Addinall wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 3:37 pm, rb <snaf...@lycos.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Afterthought. And it breaks the "All versions carry the same
> > armaments" plan.
>
> care to elaborate?
Yes. The thing was never designed with a cannon in mind.
The Marines and the A-10 drivers they didn't want one.
The USN has never wanted the things. They want more
Super Bugs please. So, as a hasty retrofit, the F-35A
got a little cannon bolted inside it's left wing pylon, and the
B and C variants get the choice of an underslung pod on
a fuselage hard point or tough luck.
> r u referring to the internal vs external gun config between variants,
> or something else?
> And what is the significance of this plan breaking?
The plan that all of the variants should be able to carry the
same kit. This makes the little Wunder-Toy cheap and
easy remember? The B model has already had it's
internal carry space shortened when compared to the
A and C, and as a result, can't carry the same ordinance
kit-out.
Apart from the fact that the stupid little thing will be obsolete
waaaaaaaayyyyyyy before it gets here, it doesn't carry out even the
initial design functions. This project is not ground breaking 21st
century stuff. In 1992 this thing was known as the Common Affordable
Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and the Joint Advanced Strike Technology
(JAST). It was decided in 1994 to combine the CALF and JAST programmes
with development to focus on the development of conventional take-off
(CTOL), Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) and a Carrier
Variant (CV). JAST was renamed the JSF in 1996.
It's now damn close to 2009, and after 17-18 years, no one has
ACTUALLY BUILT an F-35A. The thing we see wobbling around the sky is
an old X-35 with a paint job and some star-trek looking bits glued to
the beast!
The reason CALF was popular, is that according to the sales guys out
the back, they could come in at $34-36 million a pop. Which went up
to $45 million, which went up to $65 million, which went up to $85
million, which went up to $120 million. Three times the price of an
Su-35. You stick three Su-35s up in the air against one JSF toy and
the only people going home that night are going to have Russian
accents. Bang for buck. And let's not start spounting nonsense about
how a 'Network-centric' Wedgetail, if it ever arrives, is going to
change the face of Air war. How long to you think a Wedgie is going
to stay alive WITHOUT theatre air superiority? Minutes maybe.
The Eurofighter was designed to kill Russian planes. Why we are not
buying it is beyond me.
I see the JSF hasstretched out by another two years and another lay
few billion or so last week, with the plane "not expected to see
significant service until 2019". Nine years AFTER we retire the Pigs
from Space. That's handy.
Singapore is doing the sensible thing and buying some brand spanking
enw F-15Es (SG).
"The program president Chris Chadwick added that Boeing Co. is
confident that all 24 F-15SGs will roll out of the production line in
2012. He said that they were several months ahead of schedule when
they delivered the F-15K to Korea, so "there is no reason they would
delay the delivery (of the F-15SG)."
"Bass also said that the F-15 is the backbone of the American air
force and this situation will continue to at least 2035 as the
American air force will continue to improve on the F-15 to increase
its capabilities, and the Singapore air force will benefit from this.
Also, the F-15SG's lifespan is 16, 000 hours of flight and can last
for over 30 years. It will not only satisfy the demands of the third
generation Singapore air force, but also has the capacity to be
further upgraded."
A big capable plane, Around $60 million per pop. About the same as a
Su-35 kitted out with wester avionics.
Chasing the F-35 is just crazy.
Mark Addinall.
>
> rb