F22, F-35 should be scrapped.

[Winfield_Gold]

After watching this video and considering Australia is also set to receive delivery of the F-35 by 2017. The F-22 and F-35 should be scrapped. Well over budget and the superhornet was found to be useless in air to air combat. Hornet should only be used as a replacement for CAS only missions, obviously no good in air to air or dog fights.

 

US are adament they have the best military planes in the world, however in a combat scenario, I would much rather be in a Russian fighter.

 

EDIT: i'll add that the B2 Spirit is probably just as useless considering it shares the same technology and stealth technology with it's JSF cousins

 

[Hellfire257]

Look at the account to which the video you posted belongs. That should tell you a lot.

 

Be careful not to stand in the bullshit on the way out!

 

For the record, I don't like the F-35 either. :D

[Haukka81]

That video is allready posted, and it's really propaganda, even more bad than same kind videos made by usa fan's ;)

[Scrim]

US are adament they have the best military planes in the world

 

So is post 1941 history. Not exclusively, but on average very high up.

 

Never understood why some people insist that Russian tanks, planes etc are massively superior to the best counterparts in the West. I'm not saying it's crap, but even the Russians themselves have always been quite clear about prioritizing quantity and ruggedness as the means of winning, not higher technology. Not to mention that big thing that happened in '91, which for obvious reasons put a lot of military research on the back burner still to this day.

[Kuky]

From that video I assume the exercise was for close range combat only, where Russian fighters do have an advantage, but this is not everything in combat, only part of it.

[GGTharos]

You can assume that they looked at a RAND study and took it out of context, Kuky. Not to mention completely lied about what the study had written in it.

[cichlidfan]

It is probably best to first, consider the source, and second, to not believe everything you see on YouTube.

[NineLine]

US are adament they have the best military planes in the world, however in a combat scenario, I would much rather be in a Russian fighter.

 

That's a pretty broad statement....

[Pyroflash]

Yeah, I don't know, but both the power and turn rate/radius curves are better for the F-22A than just about any aircraft out there. About the only aircraft that can match it in a dogfight is the Typhoon, and only under certain conditions. Now granted, the Raptor is a tad more 'conventional' when compared to the Tiffy and -35, and thus lacks a lot of the cooler gizmos like voice interaction and the JHMCS/EO-DAS systems.

 

It doesn't really matter though, because the 22 was designed to shoot down aircraft, and apart from the Tiffy, there really is no other aircraft that can even come close to matching its capabilities in that arena. That's impressive in its own right, but they are different aircraft designed to do different things.

 

The F-22A is a stealth, supercruise capable, LPI RADAR having, AMRAAM truck of an air-air fighter. The Tiffy is really a great plane for pretty much anything, which makes it a great choice for nations like the U.K., and honestly Australia, which don't have, or can't budget for such specialization.

 

The F-35 is a whole different beast. It is a product designed to be easily maintainable in a wide range of conditions, by many countries, with supply lines across the globe. Of course it is going to be expensive.

 

Let's step back from the cost though. If I were a strike pilot, I would love the F-35, and here's why.

 

1. Decent air to air capability. It won't be winning any turn radius fights against a flanker, but it does have the ability to sneak in and fire AMRAAMs from extremely high PK positions where conventional fighters cannot approach undetected.

 

2. Unrivaled strike capability. Where factors such as SAM coverage, ROE, mission profile, and covering assets might restrict other packages, the F-35 can still fly.

 

3. Internal payloads. A lot of the numbers given for other fighters are given in a 'clean' configuration. That is to say, weapons and pylons are removed in order to give a picture of the aircraft's best possible performance. The F-35 carries its payload internally, so it doesn't have to worry about these skewed numbers. It is clean ALL OF THE TIME, even when fully loaded. Yes, there is added weight, but there is no increased drag from external stores (unless you turn it into a bomb truck with the external pylons).

 

4. The best situational awareness of any aircraft, ever. Period. Unarguable. Fully integrated systems allow you to select a target with any one of a number of systems and slave the others to it for a better picture. EO-DAS gives you a picture of the battlefield No holes or restrictions, and can detect, target, and track enemy fighters, missiles, and ground targets from a considerable distance away. The RWR, RADAR, and ECM, are all extremely capable from what I can gather, and are all integrated together.

 

 

Now about the Super Hornet. Good for what it was designed to do. It is a very reliable, and capable multi-role strike fighter. This does not mean that it is a beast at air to air like the Eagle. Far from it in fact. It is, however, quite a good choice if you cannot afford, for whatever reason, to specialize when it comes to airframes. It isn't a push over either. Yes it bleeds speed like a stuck pig, but it is still a very capable aircraft, especially when it comes to defending itself during a mission, or filling the requirements of a force constricted by either space, or budget.

 

The Su-35S would be an awesome choice if it had any integration at all with western systems. It can't fire AMRAAMs, it can't drop GBUs, its datalink is wholly incompatible with the L16 system. In an integrated battlefield, without additional integration and testing which would cost billions of dollars, the Su-35S would be a gimped bird.

 

So, Australia needs an off the shelf solution that can operate effectively using available Western systems. This leaves basically:

 

a. The Rafale.

b. The Super Hornet.

c. The Tiffy.

d. The F-35.

e. The Block 52+ or 60 Viper with dorsal tanks.

 

Those are, really, your only choices. This list gets narrowed down even further when you start considering compatibility with existing infrastructure. Basically, USAF planes are out the window. So that leaves European and USN aircraft. Once you remove the Viper from that list you get four extremely capable planes. Honestly though, apart from political considerations, considering Australia has no Navy, I would think they'd take the Tiffy over any of the rest. It seems to me that it would do the best job in the current climate for what Australia needs.

 

In the end though, *shrug*, I'm not really an expert on what Australia needs either. Australia might need a fifth generation stealth capable strike aircraft to fill some role. I have no idea.

 

 

 

 

I'll give the Russians one thing though, their fighters have always been cheap and effective for low intensity conflicts. They pioneered some aspects of high alpha aerodynamics in the early days with the Flanker, but after the wall came down, their technology has been extremely lackluster. I'll wager that it'll be at least a decade, if not more, until they come up with a serious match for the F-22A. If they even decide to go with such a specialized project. Likely they will do what they've always done and go for more generalized export capable packages like the PAK-FA.

[TAW_Blaze]

Amusing how everytime I see a similar thing about the Raptor or the Lightning the arguments are always deliberately polarized in a very idiotic manner to favor the other side. Being "double inferior" in close range BFM doesn't mean a thing if their losses are unsustainable in BVR or near WVR, which are the much more common type of fight rather than the good old and stupid turn and burn.

Edited April 12, 2014 by <Blaze>

[Phantom88]

I agree,Scrap all 5th Generation Aircraft and start producing "The Dora" FW-190 again,This thing has Thrust Vectoring Capabilities and Kicks my A$$ every time:D

[TAW_Blaze]

Start producing biplanes again, they outturn everything.

[Pyroflash]

Start producing biplanes again' date=' they outturn everything.[/quote']

 

In radius, but they rate like a donkey. :D

[lunaticfringe]

I'm going to put this short, and sweet:

 

OP: the Hornet and Raptor drivers that I know, and individuals in the F-35 program office I am acquainted with, would laugh at you so hard it would be akin to blowing out a candle with a category 5 hurricane.

 

It's that simple. It has nothing to do with the capability or potency of the Soviet/Russian types, or the Chinese types- it's that you're so far off the glide path you might as well punch now and save yourself the trip to the morgue.

[*Rage*]

Thread title...so wow!

[Basher54321]

I agree,Scrap all 5th Generation Aircraft and start producing "The Dora" FW-190 again,This thing has Thrust Vectoring Capabilities and Kicks my A$$ every time:D

 

and its turn radius is just amazing - surely that's all that matters in aerial combat :megalol:

[shagrat]

Consider a gunfight in a phonebox. One guy has a HK-G36 or M4 infantry weapon, the other a Derringer two shot from the 19th century ... though the Derringer is absolutely superior in these cramped conditions, I would not advise to scrap the modern gun and have all soldiers use Derringers!

Build for purpose is what you want.

Edited April 13, 2014 by shagrat

[will-]

I think the program should be ended, f-22 pilots having black charcoal blah, blah. with how the world works today.... IMO i don't even see the reason for planes. with 3 sat's you could have complete world domination.

[dumgrunt]

hahaha,

 

ABC + carlo Kopp, thats an interesting team. ABC is the government broadcasting/news service, rabidly socialist agenda, even the former left wing labour government was having second thoughts about them. ANY chance they get embarrass defence, whether on speculation, truth or generally just sensationalised and decontextualised crap, they take with glee and fervor.

 

The ABC, in a major report they produced in 2002, suggested that we follow the lead of the kiwis and not replace our fighter aircraft, "since there was no forseeable need for such a capability". they suggested upgrading the P-3 fleet instead because that could fulfill the role of maritime strike and was more adaptable for humanitarian missions. This was despite the fact that we had faced off with the TNI only 3 years before in the timor leste intervention (half our hornets and pigs were deployed to tindal incase the TNI decided to resist), and that at the time there were already tell tale signs that there was a looming strategic struggle between the US and the Chinese.

 

Basically if they are reporting about defence, it should be treated at best as perverted comedy.

 

and any mention Carlo Kopp's name to anyone in defence, and you generally will either get an eye roll, or outright derision and laughter.

 

anyway there was no mention in that video about any problems with the F-22. In fact air power australia (the "experts" in that video) were actually lobbying for 3 Sqn F-22/ 2 Sqn overhauled and updated f-111 force mix for the RAAF.

 

Anyway, so far as Australia's fighter needs at the moment, the problem is that we are in a policy limbo. the doctrine was basically defence of Australia, chiefly the north west shelf, which meant a good maritime strike capability, and something that could, say for example, tie up an indian carrier air wing, while the strike packages went in. CAS was a secondary consideration, but important none the less. the maritime strike and the ability for CAS, while being a capable and maintainable fighter were the chief considerations for us picking the hornet.

The f-15 was considered, but deemed unsuitable because it was purely A2A (remeber this was going on the early 80s), the viper was rejected because it had one engine (we lost a few mirages and electric rats to engine failure leading up to this). The F-14's that were meant to be delivered to the iranians were offered to us at well under cost, but were rejected bascially to do with with the cost of maintaining them, and that they couldnt do strike at the time. Hence everything we wanted was in the hornet.

 

So far as now, following 15 years, and four major operational deployments, the trend has been going towards basically a force that can integrate seamlessly in a coalition environment, with a focus on niche specialised high value assets, such as the growlers, the wedgetails, SF, RISTA. our conventional submarines are also starting to fit in this catergory after finally having most of the creases iron out of the design.

 

Hence in lieu of this, the F-35 might not be the worst design. It has to be remembered that G W and Howard, the PM at the times, are good mates, and Howard signed us up for it. It also has to be remembered that the last aircraft we signed up for while it was on the drawing board, had massive development issues, and was nearly 10 years late, was the F-111. And that aircraft, few people in know here would argue that it was our most strategically important asset, and the most capable aircraft we ever operated.

 

I could go into a big discussion on whether we actually needed to retire the pig, or the pin got pulled because the chief of airforce at the time (a helicopter pilot by trade) was rabidly anti F-111 because he was allergic to two airframe fast jet fleet. but thats for another day.

[MudRat02]

After watching this video and considering Australia is also set to receive delivery of the F-35 by 2017. The F-22 and F-35 should be scrapped. Well over budget and the superhornet was found to be useless in air to air combat. Hornet should only be used as a replacement for CAS only missions, obviously no good in air to air or dog fights.

 

US are adament they have the best military planes in the world, however in a combat scenario, I would much rather be in a Russian fighter.

 

EDIT: i'll add that the B2 Spirit is probably just as useless considering it shares the same technology and stealth technology with it's JSF cousins

 

:doh:

[PFunk1606688187]

I'm not saying it's crap, but even the Russians themselves have always been quite clear about prioritizing quantity and ruggedness as the means of winning, not higher technology. Not to mention that big thing that happened in '91, which for obvious reasons put a lot of military research on the back burner still to this day.

 

Whats most ironic is that even with that strategy in mind, the USAF roster of active fighter aircraft ought to make any Russian strategist laugh at the absurdity of it. I'm pretty sure the USAF has more active F-16s than the Russian Air Force has total fighters of any brand.

[HiJack]

This is complete BS, and I'm not referring to Black Shark.

[wilky510]

 

EDIT: i'll add that the B2 Spirit is probably just as useless considering it shares the same technology and stealth technology with it's JSF cousins

The B-2 is probably the most capable stealth aircraft ever built.

[Boris]

Maybe the whole thing is just a bis US led misinformation campaign to make the next gen fighters seem much less capable than they really are...

[Scrim]

Whats most ironic is that even with that strategy in mind, the USAF roster of active fighter aircraft ought to make any Russian strategist laugh at the absurdity of it. I'm pretty sure the USAF has more active F-16s than the Russian Air Force has total fighters of any brand.

 

Hence the public Russian decision to employ tactical nuclear weapons early on in a conflict against an evenly matched enemy I suppose.