Liberals stuffing up Australia

[stui magpie]

[Dave The Man]

[Tannin]

[Wokko]

The F35 is flawed, but is an amazing combat aircraft, stop listening to the $£$%^%%$ media, the Pilots love it.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130710.aspx

Now of course the F22 is a better fighter jet, and if the yanks would let anyone else have it then we'd be first cab off the rank (after Israel), but we couldn't wait for that so we got the next best. To think we don't need air supremacy in the region is ridiculous.

The super hornet is great as a stop gap, and the Growler electronic warfare version is as legit as they come, but the fighter be outclassed by the Russian fighters that Indonesia will purchase, we need the F35 (or F22, but that's not happening).

Stop equating a defence purchase with welfare/pension cuts, it's a cheap media trick to create faux outrage. Look at the Collins class media beatups, it's one of the best if not THE best conventional subs, but you wouldn't know it tanks to a media campaign at the time of launch. All new defence projects, particularly ones that aren't bought off the shelf have problems, but teething problems are not a catastrophe. Look at the F-104 Starfighter to see some truly horrendous defence purchase problems (Germans called it the "Widowmaker", "Flying Coffin" and "Tent Peg").

[Tannin]

^ Just so, Wokko.

Q: What is good about the F-35?
A: Many things. Let's start with low observables design. While not in the class of true all-aspect stealth aircraft like the F-117, the F-22 and the B-2A, it is nevertheless very difficult to detect on radar, so long as you are in front of it. (From the rear, it has a more normal radar signature - it's only "front half stealth".) Because you can't detect it (so long as it is flying roughly towards you) you can't shoot it down, not until you get close enough to pick it up visually or on FLIR. The theory is that you can't do that because by then it will have shot you down already. The practice remains to be seen.

Q: But what about close-in? Aren't many, perhaps most air combats decided at close range?
A: They used to be, though that seems to be changing over time. It's tempting to say that BVR (Beyond Visual Range, where you detect and shoot by radar from a very long distance) combat is the new normal. On the other hand, people have been saying that technology has rendered the traditional dogfight (close-in manouvering combat) as dead as a Dodo for more than 80 years now, and been wrong every time. The F-4 Phantom, for example, was designed in the late 1950s without a gun because missiles had rendered guns useless for air-to-air combat. Practical combat experience over Vietnam soon showed that the dogfight was alive and well. Has the march of technology really rendered close-in air combat obsolete now? There is only one way to find out: wait for the next war.

Q: So why is the F-35 considered weak close-in?
A: Because it isn't designed for that role. It was primarily designed to be a bomber: air-to-air is just a secondary design goal. Close-in, the F-35 is outclassed by most current fighters in several of the most important criteria: dash speed, power-to-weight ratio, rate of climb, maneuverability, and probably high angle-of-attack capability. Close-in, these things are vital, and the current Soviet Sukhoi and MiG fighters are supremely good at them. (As is the F-22, by the way. The euro fighters (Rafale and Typhoon) are very good at this too. The elderly but still capable American F-15 and F-16 fighters are probably superior to the F-35 close-in, and both are superior to the F/A-18A which (as a naval fighter) makes a few compromises here to achieve better range and low-speed handling for carrier operation. The Super Hornet probably sits up somewhere close to the euro fighters, but I'm only guessing that last bit - I've probably seen figures but I can't remember them. Anyway, the summary is that the F-35 isn't ideal as a dogfighter. On the other hand, the whole design philosophy is that it doesn't have to be - it can (they hope!) detect other aircraft first and take them out before they get close.

Q: So what about BVR capability? Is the F-35 good at that?
A: One last factor to mention here is radar aperture. All else being equal, a fighter with a physically larger radar in its nose will be able to detect and shoot first. The bigger the phased array, the more sensitive it is. The big Russian Sukhois and - from memory! - the F-15 and the F-22 all have room for larger phased arrays than those carried by most other fighters. Size = range = see first = shoot first. But not if the two aircraft have very different radar signatures. And not if several friendly aircraft, even aircraft of different types including AWACS dedicated radar craft, can synch their radars together to share all their information - this is where the American "networked warfare" model comes in: most of the latest American kit (including both Super Hornet and F-35) is able to do this and it is considered a huge advantage.

Q: So which is the best?
A: You can probably sort the various existing fighters into the following very rough categories: (1) F-22. Stands alone. (2) Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet and Sukhoi. (Not in any order, call those four about equal.) (3) F-15, F-16, MiG 29 and Grippen. (Again, not in any order.)

In reality, small differences in fighter capability are more than made up for by differences in detailed weapons, sensor and equipment fit, and absolutely swamped by differences in crew training and morale. Look, for example, at the Falklands War where much inferior (on paper) RAN Harriers made a clean sweep of the Argentinian Mirage derivatives, partly because of marginally superior missiles but mostly because of much better training. (The ability of the Harrier to "VIFF" - use its peculiar engine to maneuver close-in in ways a conventional fighter cannot - was much touted at the time, but was not actually used in practice because most of the combats took place at medium range.)

Q: OK, so when are you going to bed?
A: Now.

[pietillidie]

The problem here is not defence, which is essential if you want to take moral responsibility for yourself and not rely entirely on dysfunctional nutjob America, it's the imbalance of welcoming massive spending on one essential thing (responsible defence capabilities), and blocking spending on another (the digital infrastructure of the future economy).

It's not an either/or case that needs to be divided along party lines, and the disingenuous self-serving tools standing in the way of the digital economy have to be held to account every bit as much as those on the left who oppose US policy yet want to remain tacitly dependent on it.

[pietillidie]

On the OP, hang in there, DTM. Hopefully enough of us have your back that the bastards will be forced to retreat. If not, shame on us.

[Dr Pie]

[David]

[1061]

[partypie]

[Dave The Man]

[stui magpie]

^

Here's there policy on this stuff for what it's worth Dave.

http://www.liberal.org.au/disability-and-carers

Who knows, you may end up getting a job.

[HAL]

Do not ask me any more questions please.

[Dave The Man]

Giving Money to Private Schools/University is Disgusting