BF2S Forums RAAF FA-18's waste of money?

FEOS wrote:

The F-35 far exceeds the F-16 in the air-to-air department. It is second only to the F-22...to include the Rafale, Typhoon, and Su-27 derivatives.

if that is true, all I said was ofc wrong.

Though where did you get this info and how did they conclude this =O, I don't think it would be anywhere near as maneouverable as the typhoon, and as I said, quite helpless.

to quote one article which I did find pretty informative;

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The … rsy-05089/

controversy wrote:

The F-35’s explicit design goal has been stated as being the F-16’s equal in in air to air combat, at a time when the F-16’s future ability to survive in that arena is questioned. The question naturally arises: what special features give the F-35 a unique ability to prevail against the kind of advanced, upgraded 4.5 generation and better fighters that it can be expected to face between its induction, and a likely out of service date around 2050 or later

Last edited by dayarath (2008-10-31 14:16:04)

FEOS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The F-35 far exceeds the F-16 in the air-to-air department. It is second only to the F-22...to include the Rafale, Typhoon, and Su-27 derivatives.

if that is true, all I said was ofc wrong.

Though where did you get this info and how did they conclude this =O, I don't think it would be anywhere near as maneouverable as the typhoon

wiki wrote:

The USAF has conducted an analysis of the F-35's air-to-air performance against all 4th generation fighter aircraft currently available, and has found the F-35 to be at least four times more effective. Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, the F-35 program executive officer has stated that the F-35, "enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois,"[39] which are currently being flown by the Russian, Indian, and Chinese Air Forces.

Examples of sub-5th gen fighters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_gen … generation

Comparison to the F-35's true performance at this point is problematic, as the test program has just begun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighte … erformance

there's something missing on that quote;

article wrote:

In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented “see/shoot first” and combat radius advantages.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament… We do consider all of this in today’s fighters….

....Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access—all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again.”

with as commentary on that;

article wrote:

Note that Lockheed Martin’s release does not address infared stealth against modern IRST (infa-red scan and track) air to air systems, which are present on advanced European and Russian fighters. Russian designs already have ranges from 50 km (OLS35, head on) to 90 km (OLS35, rear). Nor does it make any claims concerning superior maneuverability against thrust-vectoring opponents like Russia’s MiG-29OVT and the most modern members of the SU-30 family, or canard-equipped “4.5 generation” aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, EADS Eurofighter, or Saab’s Gripen.

Can these statements be reconciled – and if not, which of them are incorrect? Some of the F-35 program’s success could hinge on the answers to those questions.

though maybe we'll find those comparisons later on in the test program, but as I said I'm very skeptical.

Last edited by dayarath (2008-10-31 14:28:23)

Yes. Everything the F-35 would be pitted against is superior. It's so obvious, why oh why would they keep spending millions and millions on it when all they had to do was go on wiki and check out the competitors performance? THEY ARE BUYING BATTLEFIELD DOMINATION, not just another fighter. think about it man. its the aircraft's systems and technology. A plane (and pilot) can only handle so many G's. so they go around that antiquated way of thinking and get a plane that does not need to dogfight, it will just fuck everything up. well thats the goal anyhow. No matter how tight a turn your eurofighter can pull, it can still get porked in the tailpipe by a missle. the most it can do is pop a few flares and some chaff. should have spent more of those euros on stealth ladies.

A plane (and pilot) can only handle so many G's. so they go around that antiquated way of thinking and get a plane that does not need to dogfight, it will just fuck everything up. well thats the goal anyhow.

Hasn't that been the goal since the F104?
Are we there yet?

No matter how tight a turn your eurofighter can pull, it can still get porked in the tailpipe by a missle. the most it can do is pop a few flares and some chaff.

Isn't that the case for the F35 too? Doesn't it have an IR signature?

dayarath wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

Yes. Everything the F-35 would be pitted against is superior. It's so obvious, why oh why would they keep spending millions and millions on it when all they had to do was go on wiki and check out the competitors performance? THEY ARE BUYING BATTLEFIELD DOMINATION, not just another fighter. think about it man. its the aircraft's systems and technology. A plane (and pilot) can only handle so many G's. so they go around that antiquated way of thinking and get a plane that does not need to dogfight, it will just fuck everything up. well thats the goal anyhow. No matter how tight a turn your eurofighter can pull, it can still get porked in the tailpipe by a missle. the most it can do is pop a few flares and some chaff. should have spent more of those euros on stealth ladies.

obviously there's alot more to the EF too. thinking that dogfighting is definately a thing of the past is rather naïve, and stealth breaks once the bombs / missiles have to go out of that internal hangar. (not to mention that it completely breaks if the f-35 wants to bring some heavy bombs, which will have to be attached on the outside)

better be safe than sorry, possibly buy both for all I care because by no means is the F-35 a bad aircraft, I just don't think it's a good idea to make it the ONLY aircraft in your entire airforce.

So, if that is a antiquated way of thinking, why did they put thrust vectoring on the f-22 and make it able to do extreme maneouvers? to make sure that if it gets to a dogfight the plane can hold his own, and that it doesn't have to worry about a OH SHIT moment when it is detected.

Well the F-22 is a Air Superiority Fighter... if i cant dogfight it has no advantage over a F-35

personally i think 75 F-35s 35 F-22s and we'd have a serious air force on our hands

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2008-11-02 03:39:29)

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

Yes. Everything the F-35 would be pitted against is superior. It's so obvious, why oh why would they keep spending millions and millions on it when all they had to do was go on wiki and check out the competitors performance? THEY ARE BUYING BATTLEFIELD DOMINATION, not just another fighter. think about it man. its the aircraft's systems and technology. A plane (and pilot) can only handle so many G's. so they go around that antiquated way of thinking and get a plane that does not need to dogfight, it will just fuck everything up. well thats the goal anyhow. No matter how tight a turn your eurofighter can pull, it can still get porked in the tailpipe by a missle. the most it can do is pop a few flares and some chaff. should have spent more of those euros on stealth ladies.

obviously there's alot more to the EF too. thinking that dogfighting is definately a thing of the past is rather naïve, and stealth breaks once the bombs / missiles have to go out of that internal hangar. (not to mention that it completely breaks if the f-35 wants to bring some heavy bombs, which will have to be attached on the outside)

better be safe than sorry, possibly buy both for all I care because by no means is the F-35 a bad aircraft, I just don't think it's a good idea to make it the ONLY aircraft in your entire airforce.

So, if that is a antiquated way of thinking, why did they put thrust vectoring on the f-22 and make it able to do extreme maneouvers? to make sure that if it gets to a dogfight the plane can hold his own, and that it doesn't have to worry about a OH SHIT moment when it is detected.

Well the F-22 is a Air Superiority Fighter... if i cant dogfight it has no advantage over a F-35

personally i think 75 F-35s 35 F-22s and we'd have a serious air force on our hands

Yes because we need such a force to defend ourselves from enemies like Indonesia and possibly Malaysia.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

obviously there's alot more to the EF too. thinking that dogfighting is definately a thing of the past is rather naïve, and stealth breaks once the bombs / missiles have to go out of that internal hangar. (not to mention that it completely breaks if the f-35 wants to bring some heavy bombs, which will have to be attached on the outside)

better be safe than sorry, possibly buy both for all I care because by no means is the F-35 a bad aircraft, I just don't think it's a good idea to make it the ONLY aircraft in your entire airforce.

So, if that is a antiquated way of thinking, why did they put thrust vectoring on the f-22 and make it able to do extreme maneouvers? to make sure that if it gets to a dogfight the plane can hold his own, and that it doesn't have to worry about a OH SHIT moment when it is detected.

Well the F-22 is a Air Superiority Fighter... if i cant dogfight it has no advantage over a F-35

personally i think 75 F-35s 35 F-22s and we'd have a serious air force on our hands

Yes because we need such a force to defend ourselves from enemies like Indonesia and possibly Malaysia.

Well considering the Indonesian army is roughly 9 times the size of our own... having air superiority would be nice.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Well the F-22 is a Air Superiority Fighter... if i cant dogfight it has no advantage over a F-35

personally i think 75 F-35s 35 F-22s and we'd have a serious air force on our hands

Yes because we need such a force to defend ourselves from enemies like Indonesia and possibly Malaysia.

Well considering the Indonesian army is roughly 9 times the size of our own... having air superiority would be nice.

I seriously doubt they would be stupid enough to invade Australia.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Yes because we need such a force to defend ourselves from enemies like Indonesia and possibly Malaysia.

Well considering the Indonesian army is roughly 9 times the size of our own... having air superiority would be nice.

I seriously doubt they would be stupid enough to invade Australia.

Tbh they are one of 4 militaries with the man power pool possible to pull it off. Indo, India, Russia and China.

Nobody else has enough manpower available really.

Jesus, last time a major enemy got close to Australia.......

The UK said HAHA but we need those two divisions of the AIF that you sent to North Africa in India, as India is the Jewel of the East and far more important to us than Australia. Major pressure from our government on the UK got us......

Nothing but OUR OWN soldiers back.

The USA, well we were only considered important as a stepping stone back to the Philippines.



When Australia is threatened the government's of our Allied nations tend to show their true colours and tell us to suck it up, they don't give a shit. I'd like to think that the ANZUS treaty and other treaties we've signed will give us protection but....

Shit last time they didn't. The UK basically said they didn't give two shits (to be fair at that point it was under threat of invasion from Nazi Germany). The USA.... Well, realistically what does Australia give the USA? Nothing they can't do without.

Flecco wrote:

Jesus, last time a major enemy got close to Australia.......

The UK said HAHA but we need those two divisions of the AIF that you sent to North Africa in India, as India is the Jewel of the East and far more important to us than Australia. Major pressure from our government on the UK got us......

Nothing but OUR OWN soldiers back.

The USA, well we were only considered important as a stepping stone back to the Philippines.



When Australia is threatened the government's of our Allied nations tend to show their true colours and tell us to suck it up, they don't give a shit. I'd like to think that the ANZUS treaty and other treaties we've signed will give us protection but....

Shit last time they didn't. The UK basically said they didn't give two shits (to be fair at that point it was under threat of invasion from Nazi Germany). The USA.... Well, realistically what does Australia give the USA? Nothing they can't do without.

True, but that was world war 2. so u can understand why the UK wouldnt send thousands of troops to a theatre that haddnt begun yet while they wer ebarely hanging on in another. America did come to our aid... really only because it served their own purposes but still they came.

But all this u haveg been saying only reinforces the need for us to have a very strong air force. we are outnumbered but air superiorty is a MUST.
We establish air superiority with our fighters and then that allows our bombers, fighter/bombers and helicopters to bring all sort of shit down on the invaders.

if we cant rely on the americans then we need our own power.