F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Abbott agrees to buy more, more, more.

[telsor]

OK, well in short, you are against us creating our own JSF, but you point out that during war, we will lose part-replacement from the US.
You also point out that a plane destroyed will not need new parts, because it's destroyed.
You are against a time for the sukhoi, but support how long it will take us to receive the jsf.

No, I said it was very unlikely we'd lose supply line (for part replacement among other things) from the US.

Not all planes shot are destroyed. Those that aren't probably need parts...As do planes that do anything (actually, even those that do nothing need some maintenance).

Where did I say I was against time for the Sukhoi? I pointed out that it wouldn't be 'immediate', and that a lot of time would be required for training pilots and ground crew, which makes the delay for the F-35 less of a difference.

 

[telsor]

Yes but how many of those can we maintain on full combat rotation (have we ever)?

Add to that when we actually need them there is always the possibilities of casualties.

Not sure, but as we've heard about the staffing problems with the subs, I imagine we'd have heard if there was a significant shortage of pilots and ground crews.

Not sure we'd have a better time retaining drone pilots though.

 

[telsor]

OK then.
So Sukhoi vs JSf.
What do you think is better?
Why?
Is it the cost, manufacturing, training, ability, results from current testing, et al?
What do you rate on the jsf, vs the sukhoi? And a quick quip why!

The Sukhoi's you're talking about (the ones available now), the F-35 is clearly better...20-30 years advance in technology does have an effect in an arena that relies on stealth, detection, data flow and control. T-50's/HALs might be more competitive, but considering development for them is behind the F-35, we don't really know yet.

Simple matter...Modern planes (combat and otherwise) are basically advanced computer systems...Do you want a modern computer, or a 20 year old one, even if the latter is far cheaper?

The simple matter that the Russians are in the process of replacing the planes you want sums up where they're at.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

and still the points are missed the Euro fighter and F22 are both ready to go proven tech from allied sources no ******* around with russia or a not yet combat capable US fighter.

do you people really think we stand a chance against except maybe the indonesian military? and even then we need more planes.

we simply do not have the numbers to get complete air superiority no matter how well made the planes are. our air defence network will be built around pin point strikes which both the F22 and eurofighter are proven to be capable at handling.

so why are we not getting planes that we know work and work well? instead of throwing money at something that may not ever be combat capable?

 

[Malifice]

Yay for the magic pixie dust that will do that.

That pixie dust got a few of them homeless in the first place.

 

[telsor]

and still the points are missed the Euro fighter and F22 are both ready to go proven tech from allied sources no ******* around with russia or a not yet combat capable US fighter.

do you people really think we stand a chance against except maybe the indonesian military? and even then we need more planes.

we simply do not have the numbers to get complete air superiority no matter how well made the planes are. our air defence network will be built around pin point strikes which both the F22 and eurofighter are proven to be capable at handling.

so why are we not getting planes that we know work and work well? instead of throwing money at something that may not ever be combat capable?

I did mention them before.

Eurofighter is the only real competition as far as I'm concerned, given that the US refuses to sell F-22s.

Which to go for is a judgement call, based on times available, the F-35 is about 10 years more advanced, but as you say, the Eurofighter is a more proven quantity. If things had been done right, we'd have Eurofighters, but the politicians waited and delayed, and by the time they acted, the F-35 was much closer to the window, given that we'd pretty much forced ourselves into a situation where we had to get some Super Hornets as an interim measure regardless.

Mind you, in 2002 when the original decision was made, the Eurofighter was also looking like a bit of a dud having had it's own share of problems, delays and cost blowouts.

As you say though, we can't control the airspace based on numbers, so we need to go for the quality.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I did mention them before.

Eurofighter is the only real competition as far as I'm concerned, given that the US refuses to sell F-22s.

Which to go for is a judgement call, based on times available, the F-35 is about 10 years more advanced, but as you say, the Eurofighter is a more proven quantity. If things had been done right, we'd have Eurofighters, but the politicians waited and delayed, and by the time they acted, the F-35 was much closer to the window, given that we'd pretty much forced ourselves into a situation where we had to get some Super Hornets as an interim measure regardless.

Mind you, in 2002 when the original decision was made, the Eurofighter was also looking like a bit of a dud having had it's own share of problems, delays and cost blowouts.

As you say though, we can't control the airspace based on numbers, so we need to go for the quality.

we still could have ordered nearly double the eurofighters rather then expand the order of F35's full well knowing the system has tons of problems, there's nothing wrong with having a mix of platforms.

I get we forced ourselves into this situation but expanding the order was just throwing good money after bad. it should have been spent on euro's

 

[Max zero]

Not sure, but as we've heard about the staffing problems with the subs, I imagine we'd have heard if there was a significant shortage of pilots and ground crews.

Not sure we'd have a better time retaining drone pilots though.

Drone pilots are quicker to train though. Also tend to die less in combat situations.

 

[telsor]

we still could have ordered nearly double the eurofighters rather then expand the order of F35's full well knowing the system has tons of problems, there's nothing wrong with having a mix of platforms.

I get we forced ourselves into this situation but expanding the order was just throwing good money after bad. it should have been spent on euro's

Actually ~50% more ($65M Vs $98M) less with sunk costs, but anyway.

As I say, at a similar stage in the Eurofighter development, it was looking pretty crappy too. Doesn't prove the F-35 will come good, but it does give hope.

There are issues with split platforms...training and parts both need to be duplicated.

 

[Floor Pie]

As I say, at a similar stage in the Eurofighter development, it was looking pretty crappy too.

2014? That's when we committed to the bulk of the purchase...

You can talk about the importance of tech et al, but if you have a plane that outclasses another plane, the still unusable tech doesn't mean much.

What does Indonesia have?

 

[madmug]

2014? That's when we committed to the bulk of the purchase...

You can talk about the importance of tech et al, but if you have a plane that outclasses another plane, the still unusable tech doesn't mean much.

What does Indonesia have?

Enough problems of its own without worrying about Australia.

 

[madmug]

Well, that is an entirely different debate.
I meant in terms of our closest neighbors' air offence.

Yes but I think they be spending most of their time & military efforts keeping their own country in one piece, not worrying about fighting Australia or eyeing off any expansion in our direction.

 

[stormee]

The key thing here that I think a lot of the haters of the F-35 are not getting is that perhaps 80-90% of the capability of the F-35 comes from what's inside its systems rather than the capabilities you can see on the outside.

Consider that right now a lot of gen 4 aircraft run Link 16, which is a secure comms platform. But then jump a generation to the F-35, and now your F-35 can use its systems to guide another plane's missile onto a target that it has acquired, share targeting information from AWACS on its own onboard systems, the list goes on. It's a quantum leap forward. Also consider that US sources consider its ability to conduct EW as being almost the equal of the Growlers we just purchased and there's another good reason.

More and more performance is not everything. You could have the fastest, most maneuverable fighter in the world, but if it can't see your slow and lumbering opponent while it's firing a missile that's been targeted by the radar of the AWACS sitting 500km away from you, then what's the point?

 

[Max zero]

The key thing here that I think a lot of the haters of the F-35 are not getting is that perhaps 80-90% of the capability of the F-35 comes from what's inside its systems rather than the capabilities you can see on the outside.

Consider that right now a lot of gen 4 aircraft run Link 16, which is a secure comms platform. But then jump a generation to the F-35, and now your F-35 can use its systems to guide another plane's missile onto a target that it has acquired, share targeting information from AWACS on its own onboard systems, the list goes on. It's a quantum leap forward. Also consider that US sources consider its ability to conduct EW as being almost the equal of the Growlers we just purchased and there's another good reason.

More and more performance is not everything. You could have the fastest, most maneuverable fighter in the world, but if it can't see your slow and lumbering opponent while it's firing a missile that's been targeted by the radar of the AWACS sitting 500km away from you, then what's the point?

Which countries have this capability and which are potential enemies?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Which countries have this capability and which are potential enemies?

More and more the f35 marketing material, which stormee has kindly cut pasted, is starting to resemble the kind used by videogame studios.

Promise the world, then umpteen cost overuns, development issues, and performance revisions later, release a partly broken, underperforming pos, that is little better than a beta version of the planned product. But they promise they will patch it to meet expectations, if only you will wait, indefinitely.

 

[Max zero]

I was just wondering who this enemy is that has gen 5 fighters, AWACS rader support and wants to go to war with us.

 

[stormee]

I was just wondering who this enemy is that has gen 5 fighters, AWACS rader support and wants to go to war with us.

Our defence policy has always been based on the premise that our equipment would be around a generation ahead of any future opponent. Our enemies might not have these capabilities but we will, and that provides the qualitative advantage that can make up for the small quantities of equipment.

 

[stormee]

More and more the f35 marketing material, which stormee has kindly cut pasted, is starting to resemble the kind used by videogame studios.

Promise the world, then umpteen cost overuns, development issues, and performance revisions later, release a partly broken, underperforming pos, that is little better than a beta version of the planned product. But they promise they will patch it to meet expectations, if only you will wait, indefinitely.

I'm just sick of the consistent negativity surrounding the F-35, and moreover from people who have no real understanding of the complexity of defence procurement and capability.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I was just wondering who this enemy is that has gen 5 fighters, AWACS rader support and wants to go to war with us.

Its a good point.

Also, another question worth asking is will the stealth technology be redundant by the time we actually take possession of usable aircraft.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I'm just sick of the consistent negativity surrounding the F-35, and moreover from people who have no real understanding of the complexity of defence procurement and capability.

Why? Australian defence procurement is rightly criticised as being rubbish, why buck that trend now.

Also what complexity? Who offers the best inducements and lobbies hardest?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Our defence policy has always been based on the premise that our equipment would be around a generation ahead of any future opponent. Our enemies might not have these capabilities but we will, and that provides the qualitative advantage that can make up for the small quantities of equipment.

When has this ever been the case?

Your posts read like paid pr/rehashed marketing material.

 

[Max zero]

Its a good point.

Also, another question worth asking is will the stealth technology be redundant by the time we actually take possession of usable aircraft.

Does the stealth even work now? Wasn't there something about the F35 stealth being a bit dated already? Have to look for the article.

 

[Max zero]

Here we go:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...tealth-jet-can-t-hide-from-russian-radar.html

http://news.usni.org/2014/05/14/can-chinas-new-destroyer-find-u-s-stealth-fighters

 

[Jakko]

I still think this whole purchase is assuming we will be allowed to buy F22s at some future point.

 

[Jakko]

Considering the stationing of US Marines in the NT, does anyone truly believe that in the foreseeable future we could be without topline US air support? Any scenario that involves Australia being in combat in SE Asia would surely involve some kind of "build up" or show of force, as a deterrent effect. That would likely involve US F22s arriving on Australian soil within a few days of any emergency. That's part of the beauty of having powerful allies stationed on your soil.