I saw the last seconds of a story on Sky News today, I only saw the last few seconds, so I missed its entire context, but it sounded very important, and was along the lines that secret reports seen by Sky News state that the next Flanker aircraft is comprehensively better than the Joint Strike Fighter.

I went to the Sky News Australia website but couldn't find an online version of the news story, but a Google search turned up the story quoted below from a few weeks ago, which may be the basis of this latest Sky report?

Before reading you should understand the Opposition political party has an interest in defending the purchase of the JSF, because they are the ones who ordered it, and if it turns out to be a dog, then they will be hammered by the other party for ordering it.

Also their minimizing it as 'just a computer game', I don't buy that, we are talking about what would be an incredibly high tech simulation, not Microsoft Flight sim.

I don't want this to turn into a my cock is bigger than yours thread, I just want to know if anyone has heard about this?



Dennis Jensen is a nuclear physicist, he isn't a moron, so I tend to take his word seriously.

Read the whole story.

Really depends entirely on what the tests were looking for, tactics they were possibly using for each side, etc.

Until it actually happens IRL, I'm not choosing either side here.

I'll side with Smokey on this one, although I have a suspicion that due to the widely different mechanical & system configurations incorperated into its design, the JSF will be somewhat weaker, certainly its smaller, possibly stealthier, but has a higher IR rating above cruise speed (a massively powerfull & so, hot single engine) and less low speed agility.
Incomparison to the Flanker, whick is more focussed in mission choice & design parameters, after its initial 10+ years of pushing its electronics, FBW systems, aerobatic skills, pilots, airshow audiences to the limits, is now in its 'Golden Age/Years' as a platform.

The JSF is more of a modern combination of Harrier & F-16, so in many respects it would be foolish to expect it to kick the Flankers buttocks.

I am not meaning to bad mouth the JSF (even if I feel that its another lame duck like the TSR2/CF-105 F-111 fiasco) it is designed for a different set of missions, abilities and mindset than the Soviet era based Flanker and its modern family offspring.

The F22 is one of the best fighters right now, the F35 is a cheaper alternative to the F22. Just like F16 was a cheaper alternative to the F15.

But i dont believe that much what a simulation says of the outcome of Su35 vs F35. To settle all this, "US planes are better than russian planes", or "Eurofighters can kick all" every 10th year a big dogfighting contest should be held. Every nation would participate with their best pilots in their best planes.

But of course this will never happen, because if US F22 or F35 would be raped by russian MiG's and flankers, it would be very embarresing for the US. Every plane producent in the world will want their plane to be best.


Hmm... i actually recall something about USAF withdraw some of their Raptors from training exercises with German Eurofighters, because the Raptors got knocked down almost everytime. I'll post it later if i find it...

This is not correct. The rear of the aircraft has basically NO stealth shaping and it relies more heavily on external ordinance and external fuel tanks then the F-22A. Additionally its RCS in the forward hemisphere with a clean profile (which mind you means a measly 4 air to air missiles) is 10x the size of the F-22's.

Besides ... all it takes to defeat stealth is a data link or WVR combat.

But your other points are solid. These aircraft aren't in the same class:
-The F-35 has a small nose cone which means a small, weak radar which isn't even equipped with LPI meaning in an electronic warfare game (eg. BVR combat) the F-35 loses to a modern phased array flanker.
-It has poorer performance windows meaning when it comes to combat it isn't going to be able to burn as much fuel (in most types of engagements) and it isn't going to be able to accelerate, decellerate or turn as fast anyway.
-Its weapons suite is severely hampered by the USA's faulted procurement plan for missiles while the Russians will offer any number of optional extras for Flankers
-The pilots workload is higher then 2 seater flankers
-Its payload is lower
-Its procurement and operating cost is far higher
-Its 25 years behind the Flanker (and counting) when it comes to actually going into service
-Its ability to survive hits & keep the pilot / aircraft functioning is lower

So yeah, pretty much the ONLY scenario it stands a chance in is where it stumbles on* a bunch of Flankers flying along with their search radars going which are still outside the 40km or so that it can be detected in.

*note by stumble on I mean the F-35 is facing the Flankers radars, their data links are turned off, it is carrying no external stores and they are not expecting its presence.

The USAF has considered cancelling its future orders of the F-22, because its maintenance costs are proving to not be woth the capability the aircraft provides. Apparently the stealth paint coating requires regular touching up, which is incredibly expensive, and maintenance costs are way over budget.

Even the best aircraft in the world is proving to be a dog.

I think within a decade it'll be all about unmanned aircraft for these reasons. These planes are way over budget and their capabilities do not justify the expense.

I don't particularly care for either the F-22 or F-35 to be honest, as I think a plane in the pattern of the F-15/F-14/F-16 would suit our needs vastly more with significantly lower costs.

(Think F-15 ACTIVE if you see where I'm going with this.)


I also strongly disagree with using UC vehicles under most circumstances. Once the equation of no human losses on the side using UCV s is gone, what's to stop them from going to war if there's low to zero chance of heavy losses?


Oh, and I do think the F-35 is a rather odd choice for the RAAF. Something with more internal fuel, the ability to loiter out at long ranges for hours and longer ranged weaponry (i.e., F-14) seems much more suitable for their needs.

For technology demonstrators, systems development, CAD, CAP, & -CAM processes & project development (within the Aeronautical Industry) the F-22 & F-35 will be benificial for the future modenisation of the Western (read as mostly for the 'USA') Military Aero & Systems Industries.

If this seems political, I am not meaning it to be, I am wishing to point out that industrial processes, advancement differences. It took Harley Davidson nearly 50 years to develop a water cooled engine for production (VR1000 nee V-Rod 1200,) that wasen't based on modified 40's technology, and then only with help from Porche and then Ford (after Porche pulled out because of industiral differences).

The long term affects of these (overly) high cost programs and advanced complex systems is the refinement & betterment of the US Industrial landscape, and the fine tuning of other countries Industrial practices that have shared development of the CAP-CAM systems and with the JSF project.

As for the RAAF's choice for choosing the JSF, it could be the US is giving them at a discount to try and repair bridges burnt over the forcing F-111 on them.
Aardvarks in RAAF hands, they struggled on with and eventually made work in typical Aussie spirit - so much so, that I believe the UK sold/leased its former One-Elevens to them once Tornado came operational. In retrospect, RAAF would posibly be better off having lower service hours ex-Kriegsmarine Tornado's and GR3/4 RAF Tornados to continue old Aardvarks missions.

The F-35's could be used in the short range interceptors, akin to F-16's or F-15's (before there overworked & unkowingly stressed forward fusalage/cockpits bulkheads started tearing apart - reminds me of the old Canabarra wing spar problems).

really i don't see much use for planes in the future beyond Air to Air combat (and even then, not much and not against another advanced aircraft). Missile development and helicopters would be my bet for the future. With cruise missiles and Helicopters you can fulfill the main rolls of air to surface combat with a MUCH lower operational cost(as long as you don't go trigger happy with the missiles) and much greater safety. I think UAVs will fill the roll of lighter helicopters for fire support, especially in dangerous areas while heavier choppers would be mainly special operations. The reason that the F22s and F35s are seeing little use is because the chance of getting shot down isnt worth the advantage gained. In the future, i dont think there will be any major combat where the US or Russia will go up against another major force head on. I predict that combat will be more like we are seeing in Iraq, where combat is hit-and-run or quick pockets of fighting. In those cases, a sea-based missile launcher is just as good as a plane and removes the possibility that a US aircraft could be shot down. As for the possibility of collateral damage, fill the cruise missiles with cement and fire them. they proved that works a while back when they destroyed a building with several terrorist leaders in it.

in all the "whose plane is better" argument doesn't change anything because they will never see major engagements against each other. Even if Russia and the US do have an engagement, the F22s probably will never be shipped of the US coast and the USAF would never send F35s against flankers

Much the same was said in around the 1957 - 1958, which led to the cancelling of the CF-105, TSR-2, XF-103 and others, where all thought that Missiles and SAM's would render ALL aircraft useless. When some aircraft still made it through towards production, USAF decided that Guns weren't needed, which led to the intial massive losses to MiG's in the early part of the Vietnam War (the Korean War used a mix of WW2 and early jets that relied more on guns than the infant missiles being 'field tested' their).



The RME versions of the Centurion & Chieftan MBT's had something nicknamed the 'Dustbin Round' (or something similar,) which was basically a large spigot Motor firing what was a 1/3rd of ton of ballistic concrete - It might've chipped a bit, but it didn't explode, and it flattened/pulveriesed anything it hit; it truely did and is a shame it hasen't been developed for A2G usage as well.

The majority of your statement is reasonably true, or realistic enough to be a likely projected outcome of what could be.

The forums are alive.... with the sound of nerds furiously typing...

Thanks Better, I'll take that as a compliment considering I'm only a Geek and will never be a Nerd.

I do not wish to become one (a Nerd- no disrespect meant, my termnilogy is my my own), nor can I: I don't ware glasses semi-permanently, I am not a Virgin, I am not clean shaven, I don't live with my parents, I did not graduate from Univerisity (UK-Coventry Univeristy Auto Tech).

Don't take it personally, I have myself a laugh every time this stuff rears its ugly head once more.

I've never really seen the point of the f22 anyway it's stupidly expensive offers nothing that wasn't already available, expensive to run and maintain and to top it all off it will never be used because the US doesn't go to war with people who can shoot down their planes.

I hate aircraft

You're absolutely right. Its always the first aircraft of a generation that brings with it the burden of high development costs. The F-22A will pave the way for cheaper stealthy fighters in the future and probably even helped bring down the cost of the lowering of RCS on the older generation (see F-16's & F/A-18E's.) So in some ways criticising the original R&D program for being expensive is redundant until the entire generation has been put into service.



Sorry but I'd have to say no on the Tornado for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its speed. The F-111 is a faster 'penetrator' and precisely the kind of aircraft we need in this region. Its got range, its got punch and its got speed making the poorly equipped regional air forces impotent at intercepting it.

Something akin to the Su-34 or a hypothetical F/B-22 would be better for our purposes. Basically the same deal as the F-111 but a match for our regional opponents in the air (an important issue because at the moment they're all starting to field better aircraft then us).

There is one last argument though. For a long time our regional partners and rivals have argued that our possession of the F-111 puts us in a threatening position. It could therefore theoretically be argued that our aircraft procurement since then has been deliberately skewed to get them past these fears. They've got nothing to fear from F-35's or F/A-18's so they may as well not upgrade their air forces as rapidly as their economies can manage. Indonesia for example seems to have followed a pattern like this ... acquiring a measely 4 Flankers for evaluation and then stalling on the purchase of a larger fleet.

As for the high cost of the F22 being unbalanced next to the capabilities it gives the USA ... that may be the case if you weigh the USAF vs. say the PLAAF. If the USAF spends all their funding buying a handful of elite jets and the Chinese get something 10-20% worse but can field 10x as many they win but thats an unlikely scenario anyway as ICBM's > planes.

What is more likely is say an engagement between an airforce the size of the Royal Malaysian Air Force. They have around 18 modern flankers, a few more fulcrum's and some hornets. Its a modernised air force but small and therefore easily overcome no matter what equipment you use. HOWEVER ... the USAF probably would see air to air losses against a force like this if using inferior aircraft (see F-15, F-16 etc.). All plans do fall apart the moment the shooting starts after all and then it comes down to who had the better training and equipment ... and that would be the RMAF ... unless the USAF fielded a good number of F-22A's.

So yes ... they have a justification ... and that is winning air to air battles against medium powers with minimal casualties.



The whose plane is better argument matters from a regional security standpoint. The side with the better military can put pressure on other countries more easily. Additionally this thread isn't about procurement for the USAF but for the RAAF and it matters to us. Because lets face it, the USA might be facing collapse ... and that might leave us without our 'big and powerful friend' in a region full of angry starving former colonies armed to the teeth with new Russian weapons ... and thats before you get to China ... who instead of getting colonised, got whacked up on opium and raped for 2 centuries.

Oh and if you can't tell I'm talking worst case scenarios and using exaggeration to get a point across. The performance of US designed aircraft matters as much for its customers as it does for the USAF.

Onto UAV's ... I don't think we'll see AtA UAV's in the next decade ... modern air to air types are taking quite a while to develop and thats before you get all radical and delete the cockpit. Maybe 2 decades and they'll probably still be accompanied by manned aircraft to begin with to help balance out the weaknesses.

Don't worry, I wasn't intending to take it personally, how can I say, my irony doesnt translate well to typing.

Not to mention that when they become self-aware, they will see all humans as a threat, not just the ones on the other side. They would decide our fate in a microsecond...

No see that already happened. But the smart buggers at the university somewhere in California that made the artificially intelligent helicopters didn't arm them to the teeth. That will be Cyberdyne's job some time in the next decade.

If Australia had purchased Flankers, does that mean we could produce them here under licence? If so that probably would of been a better idea since it would create massive amounts of jobs and a new skill set in Australia we previously didn't have.

If you do that I would fully support declaring war on you.

I wouldn't. I would buy me some Flankers!

But Flankers are purdy

That they are. (And cheaper then '22s.)

But not as purdy as the Mig35

But not as sexy as a YF-23

Yes ... of course it would depend on the 'political realities' and if you're watching hollowmen you might know the answer actually means "lets form a committee / task-force / commission / political jerk off."

Basically 2 countries have set up shop to make Flankers and both had their first 100 or so delivered. Another is considering doing it. All 3 have their own reasonably well equipped aircraft factories ... as do we. But I'm not Boeing would be 100% keen on Sukhoi borrowing those. However we've got plenty of world class engineers and plenty of money so thats not too much of an issue.

Plus I doubt it would be cost effective for an order of say less then 120 which would mean we'd have to consider other ramifications. Sure we're spending FAR more then the price of 120 flankers on F-35's and F/A-18E's but could we maintain that many hangars, pilots, ground crews? Could we afford to intimidate Indonesia into a potential arms race? Do we really need more then 120 highly capable multi-role fighter aircraft?

Still alot of debate regarding these "exercises" some may well be faked from one of the groups who wants the Aussies to get another aircraft. Reportedly the USAF came out and said this is false. To be fair the Su-35BM or Su-30MK2 which have thrust vectoring would probably defeat the standard F-35A in a dogfight, yet missiles like the AA-11 and AIM-9X make this far from certain. I suppose the Australians could pay for some 3D thrust vectoring nozzles on their F-35As if they want.

Yes the rear of the F-35 family is not as nearly as stealthy as the rear of the F-22A, but there are some stealth qualities qualities. The LOAN nozzle, while not as stealthy as flat 2D designs like on the Raptor is an improvement over traditional designs for example.

"Besides ... all it takes to defeat stealth is a data link or WVR combat."
Stealth can still help in visual range as British pilots can attest to when they faced the Raptor, and the capability of data linked aircraft being able to defeat stealth designs is vastly overexaggerated.

"-The F-35 has a small nose cone which means a small, weak radar which isn't even equipped with LPI meaning in an electronic warfare game (eg. BVR combat) the F-35 loses to a modern phased array flanker."
Far from true. The APG-81 on the F-35 is a very capable phased array radar and is largely based off of the APG-77 on the Raptor.

"-It has poorer performance windows meaning when it comes to combat it isn't going to be able to burn as much fuel (in most types of engagements) and it isn't going to be able to accelerate, decellerate or turn as fast anyway."
Poorer performance when compared to a modernized thrust vectoring Flanker. The basic design is similar to the F-16A in terms of maneuverability and expecting a single engined aircraft to outrun the twin engined flanker is a bit unfair.

"-Its weapons suite is severely hampered by the USA's faulted procurement plan for missiles while the Russians will offer any number of optional extras for Flankers"
Don't see where you get this. It can still carry the the AIM-9X, AIM-120, AIM-132, and Meteor air to air missiles. Plus all sorts of ground attack weapons. Surely it will be upgraded to use any new designs too.

"-The pilots workload is higher then 2 seater flankers"
Indeed but compared to earlier single seat designs it has a lesser workload and you have more pilots for other aircraft.

"-Its payload is lower"
True but your comparing a much larger twin engined aircraft to the smaller single engined F-35.

"-Its procurement and operating cost is far higher"
Don't know where you get this. The F-35 family promises operating costs comparable to conventional single engined fighters. Plus a modernized Flanker costs more than typically stated.

"-Its 25 years behind the Flanker (and counting) when it comes to actually going into service"
Where did you get 25 years?

Basically the F-35A (the version most countries are buying) should be looked at as a replacement for the F-16. A single engined fighter and attack aircraft which can be bought in large numbers. Major improvements over the F-16 include a much greater range, stealth capability, and cutting edge radar and avionics. Yet the F-22A would probably be more suited to the Australian requirement which seems to call for a larger aircraft. Perhaps if they bought some they could also help move along either a FB-22 or FB-23 which would be a true replacement for the F-111.

Some sources such as Air Power Australia really push for the Raptor, however they pubish all sorts of attacks and outright lies regarding the F-35 in order to do it.
This comes from another forum regarding them:

"No Air Power Australia want Australia to spend Billions on jet fighter aircraft alright, just so long as the money is spent where THEY want it spent, which happens to be the "Australia Industry Solution". More succinctly, the "Australian Industry Solution" was submitted by Australian Flight Test Services in response to the Australian Government's request for information released in 1999 for replacement aircraft for our existing F/A-18 and F-111 aircraft.

Australian Flight Test Services is (it hasn't existed as a company since 2005, when in it's last throes, it operated our of Mr Goon's private house...) a company owned by Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp, the "founders of Australia's leading defence think-tank" Air Power Australia. Their "solution" was for RAAF to operate a dual fleet of around 50x F-22's and 50x upgraded F-111's. Having no substantial industrial base, their plan was to "win" the contract to upgrade the F-111's and then sub-contract ALL the work out to Industry which DID have the capacity to perform the work...

Mr Goon and Dr Kopp would then kick back and enjoy the enormous royalties flrowing from this. Funnily enough, Mr Goon still goes around telling people that he expects to be paid royalties in the event that Australia somehow did manage to acquire F-22 aircraft and or upgrade it's F-111's, because he (and Dr Carlo Kopp) thought of it first and submitted the idea in writing...

The fact that the F-35 has been chosen as the default aircraft to replace Australia's F/A-18 and F-111 fleet in the longer term (with the Super Hornet replacing the F-111 in the short term) means that no royalties flow to Mr Peter Goon or Dr Carlo Kopp (not that they would anyway, but Kopp and Goon believe they would). Hence Air Power Australia's "critical analysis" of anything that stands in the way of their chances of gaining this contract."

quote warz!!!!!!!!!

EPYK BATTULZ!

Although this will probably make me sound like a douche, I find it absolutely hilarious that the guy that has the best chance of actually flying these things doesn't have a clue what any of you are talking about, nor any desire to care. Love ya all.

British Pilots wouldn't know what hit em against stealth aircraft for one pretty blatant reason ... why train / equip to face your allies in the air???
Simply; modern RAF tactics and equipment are WHOLLY 4th generation.

They have no IRST's, no OLS's, NO Phased array radars, a small amount of new aircraft with data links & the appropriate hardware to run anti-stealth software but need I repeat myself NO Phased array radars so they're pretty much Iraq to the USAF.



Actually ... you're right on this one. Its based almost entirely on the APG-77. Basically they got the F-22A's radar and shrunk it (range) and then took out the single feature the F-22A holds over Russian radars ... LPI. Whoops.



Exactly. But take the thrust vectoring and the advanced new engines off the Flanker, take away its canards and give the F-35 a clean configuration and the Flanker would still come out on top in performance. Thats a wide gulf ... more then enough for a 2-bit third world pilot (let alone the PLAAF, RMAF or IAF) to exploit against an RAAF pilot.



Where I am going with this:

The RAAF is not procuring any Meteors even after they are ready for production so stop talking about irrelevant future space technology.

The AIM-132 is inferior to the Aim-9x and probably also the original R-73.

The AIM-9X is only as good as the sensor suite used to launch it ... Sukhoi's can be purchased with superior sensor suites ... end of story.

The AIM-120 is inferior to the R-77 according to the RAAF and the R-77 is nothing compared to the longer range Russian options available. Sure, most of them should only be targetting AWACS but the AIM-120's 70km max range and the R-77's 120km max range are nothing but pissing in the wind compared to newer R-77M's @ 180km or R-37's @ 300+km or since you brought up future space technology the KS-172 @ 400km.

So in summary; the F-35 in the RAAF will be able to field 2 types of short range air to air missiles which will only occasionally put them on equal footing to our opponents in dogfights.

At medium range we will be made of fail and tea-biscuits and may as well yell angry words at our opponents over the radios hoping they choose to dogfight us instead.

And at long range ... we don't even have the option of firing a missile. While they do ... and will ... repeatedly ... until we go home to cry about our faulty procurement plans.



We've got plenty of co-pilots sitting around on their thumbs after that last batch of planes you guys delivered 15 years late and 300% over budget broke down on us. Oh did I mention you wouldn't give us the right software or hardware to do our own maintenance on them? So we're fine in that regard mate ^_^



And then the American said to the Australian: "Don't trust those sneaky Russian's, they'll be late on deliveries and overcharge you!"



I'd much rather be comparing 2 engine, big winged RAAF F-22A's to Flankers. I wouldn't have this little niggling doubt about the potency of our armed forces if that were the case.



The Su-27 was introduced into service in December 1984

I must make my apologies. Its actually 24 years and counting. Oh but it'll be 34 years and counting before the delivery date for the FIRST RAAF F-35's and with the USA's track record it'll be 49 years.



Source: A former member of the A-10 and F-16 design teams

So stop saying "omg this aircraft is supposed to replace the F-16. Its a downgrade even from that ... and a $20 million second hand sukhoi makes mince meat of them in EVERY performance category.

Lockheed Martin's response included this classic little lie:


Note ... they basically just said the F-35 beats the Mig-31 in top end speed, the F-15 in combat radius and the Su-27 in sub-sonic accelaration. Thats like saying it has a lighter take off weight then the Fokker Dr.1!!!

BDTR ... just hope like hell that if you do end up flying one of these things that its the F-22A and not the F-35. Please ... cos the difference is massive.

So I've got to ask this question, is the harrier GR4 a better jet than the F35A then?

I'm fairly certain the Harrier went from GR-3 to GR-5.

Oh and ... only the SeaHarrier FA2 variant would stand much of a chance against F-35's. The rest are actually pretty poor at anything but short range and strike operations. In a dogfight I'd bet all the models with upgraded engines would give the F-35 a serious run for its money.

Where are you getting this "Us" business? I couldn't give two****s and a nickel what fighters you got, so long as they work.

Also: If you guys ever decide to purchase the Flanker/any new variant of it, I do hope our government is not as stupid as they appear and say "Huh, maybe we should get some of that...."

In a straight up dogfight, the F-35 is inferior to the Flanker.

I am not a fan of the F-35. Its too expensive, too heavy, and too much of a compromise to be good at any one thing. However, its what we have now that is ready for production. . . . .


And you guys are missing a lot of points.

Don't underestimate the skill of British pilots. Also not just at range but even in dogfights they had trouble locking onto F-22As. Yes we are their ally but who is to say they are not trying to counter stealth aircraft (as future Chinese and Russians designs could be) to the best of their ability? Later Typhoons have an IRST system and a phased array radar, I have no idea which type of British Typhoons have gone to Red Flag however.



Where do you get this idea that the APG-81 does is not a LPI radar? The APG-77 also hold many more advantages than that over Russian radars.



Just as I would trust a F-16C pilot to match a "classic" Su-27 in a dogfight I fully believe the F-35 could do the same even if it was carrying some air to air missiles externally.



Yeah the RAAF does not the Meteor but the RAF and other countries do.

The AIM-132 may not be as maneuverable as the AIM-9X or R-73M but it does have a clear advantage in speed.

Yes the AIM-9X is only as good as the sensor suite the aircraft has, yet the F-35 series has an extremely advanced sensor package which can surely use the full capability of the AIM-9X.

The only advantage the R-77 has over the AIM-120 is range, and not a huge one at that. The AIM-120D will eventually show up anyway. Very long range missiles like the KS-172 are only useful against large targets not moving too fast anyway and won't be a huge threat to your F-35s.



The F-111 program was not all fun and games on this side of the pond either. Yet it did mature into a capable bomber. Besides for the F-35A you have the FA-18E/F, F-15E+, and F-22A to consider so there is no need to attack the F-35 in such a manner because it was not the best choice for you guys.



Oh they will be on time, until they break down and you want to get something fixed/upgraded.



I agree that the F-22A was probably better suited to your needs. Yet slandering the F-35A as garbage because your government made a bad choice is not a good choice either.



It took another year or two for the Flanker to start arriving in strength, regardless the F-35 would only have taken 24 years so far if you count all of the fighter programs and requirements that would merge over the years into the JSF requirement. Yet the F-35 was developed under the JSF program with the latest technology, and not under older programs.



While many of his claims are wrong that man is entilted to their opinion, yet many others would strongly disagree.



How is it a downgrade from the F-16? It is an improvement in just about every area! The areas where Flankers (with thrust vectoring) have an advantage is in range, payload, and maneuverability. Compared to a Flanker without thrust vectoring the F-35 is roughly equal when it comes to maneuverability. Yet the F-35 has a huge advantage in stealth (when in a clean configuration) and sensors. Not to mention a version with STOVL capability. Also while a single engined design usually results in a smaller aircraft which means less payload and range, it provides advantages in cost and maintainability



Well the F-35B can take off in a shorter distance than the Fokker Dr.1. So Lockheed lies a bit. Many of the F-35s critics (who in the US are doing it over budget reasons) often lie. It was a statement for the general public. Again I think you guys should have either bought Raptors or modernized "2nd generation" Eagles but the Lightning II is a still a great aircraft even if it is not right for your needs. It may be wrong for Australia but many European countries as well as others like Israel want it.

While I believe the F-35 is a great aircraft I believe there are problems with it and it improvements that could be made. I think the original design could have been better and the current design should be lighter and the F-35A/C should have a 3D thrust vectoring nozzle as standard in my opinion. Looking back I believe the McDonnell Douglas design should have been further developed (this may have also kept them from merging with Boeing) but we can't change that now.

Surely you can't think that the Flanker is perfect in every way. Consider that the F-15 is actually more maneuverable at high speeds.

Lol bit depressing, the harrier is over 40 years old now and still it's still got a better payload than the f35. You would of though in 40 years the f35 would of been a much bigger leap forward but I can't really see why the f35 is worth having.

Think of the F-35 as a replacement for the F-117. It carries 2 x 2000 lb LGB/JDAMs, 2x Air to air missiles, and a 20mm cannon faster, over a longer distance with a lower RCS and IR signature. Its more of a strike platform with a secondary A2A role than an air superiority fighter. . . .

And for those of you bitching about its 'short' range, you should be made aware of the giant empty bay on the CTOL versions where a fuel tank could be fitted. However, there is a reason they are leaving it empty for now. And this reason would make the F-35 the most lethal dogfighter in history. . . .

And we just sold 25 of them to China Israel. . . .

IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR

The Typhoon's IRST is actually inferior to the Su-27's original type. It only provides tracking and acquisition so the radar still needs to be used to range the opponent. This has OBVIOUS consequences against an F-22A especially when your radar is not phased array YET. Additionally the Typhoon only has limited 'self defence' capabilities so far until it gets to Tranche 2, block 10. Right now its about as effective as a weapons platform as Pakistani F-16A's.



Such as? Name 1.



Well you'd be wrong.



No they don't ... its a hypothetical future space technology missile. In other words ... its not ready for a minimum of 5 years.



Thats true but its not reprogrammable (eg. always flies the same direction at the opponent). Its range is less then HALF its competitors and even less then the original R-73 from 1985.



The Mig-35 has the most advanced sensor suite in the world, followed by the F-22A. The F-35 is behind about half the variants of Sukhoi's in our region, the Rafale which went into service a while back and indeed even some new block upgrades of older US aircraft.



Actually, thats not entirely correct. The R-77's maximum range is fantastic. But thats not where it stops. Currently, according to the RAAF, the R-77's 'no escape zone' is superior to the AMRAAM's maximum range meaning that an R-77 equipped aircraft in a head on BVR engagement can kill an AMRAAM equipped aircraft before the latter can even fire missiles.

Additionally the R-77 is more agile and can be used against other kinds of targets INCLUDING in AMRAAM's. Given that most R-77 carriers carry more missiles then most AMRAAM carriers thats a pretty handy advantage.

Also, saying the R-37 or KS-172 are only useful against large targets not moving fast or w/e is a load of crap. These missiles are just as agile, if not more so then your fantastical AMRAAM ... and their guidance systems & kg's of explosives make them superior against fighter sized targets. Their biggest weakness really is that they cost a LOT more then R-77's. So sure, use them against AWACS etc. but don't waste them on smaller targets that you can easily beat with your other superior missiles.



Actually we don't have the F-22A to consider. Its illegal for you to sell us that aircraft. I'd love a few of those up on our top end but the only way thats going to happen is if the pilots are from the USAF.

And I don't care how 'fun' the F-111 project was for you guys. You broke an international contract. Thats a serious offence. You may as well have captured a couple of our merchant ships and said "oh sorry ... a few of ours got captured a few years back ... but we're keeping these ones". Legally its about the same ... in fact extortion is a more serious offence then piracy.



No ... the Su-27 went into operational service 24 years ago. Unless someone at the Lockheed Martin factory invents a time machine the F-35 is not going to improve on that.



Actually ... the F-35 has far smaller control surfaces, lift surfaces, thrust and a far poorer aerodynamic layout. So even compared to the original Flanker its made of fail. In fact even compared to the F-16C its made of fail.

As for sensors; yeah its superior to the original Flanker but as far as I'm concerned the F-35 is 'future space technology' until it arrives at an RAAF air base with a manual. And in the meantime Flankers with more advanced sensors then those planned for the F-35 are not only available on an online catalogue but have been delivered to OUR REGIONAL RIVALS.

What are we supposed to do while waiting for you guys to blunder through your development program? Threaten the Indonesian's with sci-fi concepts and giant defence budgets which lead to no-where?

Oh and I see what you did there, you tried to make an admission 2 advantages for the Flanker in 3 areas and then retracted 1 when deleting the thrust vectoring option hoping people would assume range and payload suffer without thrust vectoring when the opposite is true. Thrust vectoring makes your engines less effecient and adds a little bit of weight. Hence why a number of countries (including Russia) opted for non-thrust vectoring variants.



I don't think the Flanker is perfect in every way. Its just not a dog ... like the F-35. Its also probably the aircraft that will be bombing the city I currently live in before I die. So excuse me if I take this matter seriously.

Oh and provide a source for that claim ... that the F-15 is more agile at high speeds. I mean given the F-15 is actually faster then the Su-27 it wouldn't surprise me if the F-15 could at least turn at its top speed. But you made a more general statement then that. And given the Su-27's and F-15's designs I highly doubt you're correct.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

Mmmm, this is turning into a bad Englished txt speaking theory war of facts, what ifs and egos.

Grab some ice cubes, put em' somewhere to cool you cholar, and think straight people; we know who you are...

The JSF is its non VTOL version will be more capable the the VTOL versions; which are basically short range ship/fleet defence & shore attack platforms - between Sea Harrier F/A.2 'Shar' with some Harrier GR.8/9 type abilities. For what it is, the JSF is ok, but its abilities even when considering its seperate models & their associated roles, mostly do not equal of better the many aircraft it is set to replace in servfice across the customer countries.

What it does achieve is the learnign and teaching of maintainance, training, procurement, operation, design & manufacturing protocols, force structure and such for many countries that will make parts for it, operate it, and as of yet, mostly don't have knoweledge of 4th-point-five or 5th generation aircraft. Thats where it will be most succesfull, giving poorer, limited or less advanced operators a jump start on the road to being able to operate 5th & 6th Gen aircraft when they are available.

Personally I think that the RAF has been severly shot in the foot by the MOD's and UKGov's tie into this project; certainly from an operational & security standpoint, otherwise its a 'phyric' beneifit for those involved in its design & manufacture; except for the US/Lockheed Martin (Lockheed + Martin Marietta + Northrop Grumman)
where they gained and extensively learned much from (and bourght the rights to) Vector Thrust VTOL systems established from Hawker, Bristol Siddley, Rolls Royce and BAE/EADS.

This is ok, and they sure as hell needed it after the USA's (on it own, from its own industrial base;) previous and last VTOL attempt, the Rockwell XFV-12.

If I have tpyed wrong or warmed anyone towards flaming, I am sorry, there is already enough heat in theis thread. But as I previously said, this is mostly a tech, knowledge & industrial demonstrator, conversely opposite to how its being portrayed as a weapons system; it should be noted that if they politico's and industio's involved said this was the main aim of it, to learn and to teach, no one would realistically be wanting to procure it.

I don't claim to know much about the Typhoon but I am sure there are some Brits or somebody who would strongly disagree with you about the aircraft.



Compared to the top Russian radars? Better ability to counter ECM, low probability of intercept, easier to maintain and upgrade, and probably more modes to use.



I think your wrong. I would argue the F-16 and F-35 could match the Su-27 in close combat with the experience of the pilot the key factor.



I said they wanted it and they are eventually going to get it unless it is cancelled. Besides for that there are options to extend the AMRAAM's range offered by Hughes/Raytheon.



Don't know where you get the range of half it's competitors. Range is pretty average for a short ranged missile. For short ranged weapons range is not that much of a factor either.



Sure the Russians say it does. I am sure Lockheed Martin would say different with the F-35. The only sensor advantage modernized Sukhoi's would have is in radar range, which is not going to do them any good against a clean F-35.



Tell me when has the RAAF officially stated these things? Estimates for the range of both the R-77 and the AIM-120 say different.



The Russians claim the R-77 is more agile but others have their doubts. I would love to see the R-77 hit an AMRAAM at a good rate too. Depends on what aircraft is carrying the R-77 and what it is up against too.



The AIM-54 was supposed to work great against fighters at long range too. Yet it did not work too well against such targets. If used at anywhere close to their maximum ranges that fighter could easily be out of the area it will look for a target in. Not to mention the missile we be much more heavily effected by ECM at long ranges! Superior missiles? I would say we have the superior short and medium range air to air missiles and only lack the long range designs because we have decided we don't need them.



True but there has been some pressure to allow the F-22A to be exported. Being one of our best allies Australia deserves the chance in my view.



Yeah we screwed up the F-111 and that may have been a serious offense to you guys but in your view you should buy from the Russians out of spite?



Usually the date is listed as somewhere between 1984 and 1986. And of course the F-35 won't improve on that but it has all the advantages in new technology over the years compared a Flanker B.



What have you been reading that has told you this stuff? The original design and aerodynamic layout could be better but it is still pretty damn good for a stealth fighter. I am willing to bet the F-16A/C could match the original Flanker in a dogfight and the F-35 could match that F-16A/C as Lockheed Martin and others claim.



It was YOUR choice. I disagree with our governments decision not to sell the F-22A but when there is money to be had Washington could change their mind. Plus you have already bought some Super Hornets and you could also get new Eagles.



I never stated that. I know most thrust vectoring nozzles add weight and complicate things. I just said that compared to a Flanker without thrust vectoring the F-35 could match it in a dogfight. As for Russia opting for them, I believe their latest Su-35BMs have thrust vectoring. Yet money has held them back for many years although now Putin is trying to rebuild the might of the USSR.



The F-16 is anything but a dog and neither is the F-35. It may be heavy but like your Flanker it is maneuverable even without thrust vectoring.



Many believe the F-15 can turn better than the Su-27 at speeds above Mach 1. I'll try to dig up some more information.

Ah, it looks like things are peaking here, as for the F-15 being more manouverable at high speeds, thats quite possible, as its certainly been proven to be one of the stongest jets made...

All of the earlier ones (pre-E model; if not'spre-D) have een grounded after a few cracked up in the air with some losses to pilots/crews; unfortunate, but after inpecting the rest, all had unknown airframe damage that would have rendered other aircraft destroyed upon take-off or low altitude manouvers.

An F-15 survived losing its entire starbord wing and safely landed during one of the Israel Wars.

The F-15 structural airframe is a mixture of steel nickle alloys 70% and titanium 7%, plus aluminium boron composites & normal steels being the remainder. It was designed with high altitude hogh speed (ans so kinetic heating) and low altitude interception in mind, at a time when money wasn't a real concern in making sure it was tough enough for all that and more.

Back on topic, sort of...

I like the way people are saying against a Flanker this and JSF that, surely the MiG 29/35 would be a better opponant, as it closer in size, mission range and general mission roles - think late Soviet era F-16 equivalent.

Just do your research. The Typhoon isn't even finished yet. To make it into service by a reasonable date they shipped it with either redundant systems they planned to replace or prototype systems that needed testing & refinement before completion. Each of the tranches and tiers of manufacturing will take the aircraft closer and closer to its full capabilities and as each new tranche is completed the older ones will be brought up to full standard.


Incorrect, the best way to counter ECM is to burn through it with a higher power radar. Russian Phased Array's are higher power then all AESA radars by default because of the way they work so they beat even the APG-77 in this regard.


Incorrect, LPI only exists in 2 radars in existence. The APG-77 and the Zhuk AE.


So you're telling me that a vastly more complex design with more (smaller) electrical components that is supposed to withstand huge G-forces and temperatures is going to be easier to maintain? The only argument which works favour of this for an AESA is that modules don't need to be replaced immediately to keep the radar operational. HOWEVER ... each module's death reduces the power of the radar and AESA's have been having giant teething problems in the USA. The APG-77 could only spend 30 minutes operational at a time before the a module broke down and actually short circuited the entire radar as of the end of last year. Compare that to a radar type thats been in service and is still functioning 30 years after its introduction on the Mig-31 with a mean time between overhauls of 5,000 flight hours and you've got a pretty big gap in maintainability. As for upgrade ... I don't know but actually my gut feeling is with the AESA. Lots of smaller components means you can swap out parts much easier. But it also means that more can go wrong when upgrading systems.


According to your own assumptions? Modes are a highly guarded secret. Indian pilots a few years back wouldn't let USAF personnel examine the radar equipment on their Su-30MK's which are a whole generation behind the Su-30MKI's and yet another generation behind the Mig-35. What special modes do you think the F-35 has? Name 1.


Stop with your whole 'pilot = key factor' BS. As equipment has matured the quality of pilots has mattered less and less. With the original biplanes it was the decisive factor but in a knife fight ... with 2 competent pilots who've had roughly the same amount of flight time. Its whoever can look at the other plane and click the trigger the fastest now. That means if your plane has better thrust, more fuel and can turn faster you win. You don't have to be a genius to do that. The genius is in the mission planning and tactics which are mostly used prior to engagement.

And we're talking about the RAAF here. Our pilots spend a lot more time training then USAF, USMC or USN pilots spend training and every time we go up against you guys in exercises with the old model of the same aircraft we beat you. So in many ways pilot training is a factor but lets put it this way. If I got the best world rally car driver and someone from the middle of the same field, gave the first a NASCAR and the second a formula 1 car and then checked who went round a single corner faster ... the answer is pretty damn obvious. And we're talking about a MUCH larger gulf in performance then that.

Pilot skill is one factor ... but it doesn't discount the fact that our pilots who FLOG the USAF in exercises with F/A-18A's lose against the RMAF who fly Fulcrum-A's.



Older quotes:



Stop lying. You said quite clearly the F-35 today can carry a fictional space missile and that it is already in service in the RAF. Saying that 'they wanted it' and that you said that previously is a lie. Stop trying to dupe yourself into a West is best attitude.



Its range is 18km. The R-74m has a range of 40+km. Sure the Python & AIM-9X (which is still having big teething problems) also only have a range of around 18km. But thats because no one thought it was logical to make these missiles almost as capable as an AMRAAM given that they're thought of as only backup weaponry in the US & Britain.

Range is a HUGE factor in a knife fight. Basically Russian pilots come with a spear while you come with a knife. Their new sensors can detect a NON-afterburning target facing them at 45km. So if it is facing away (let alone afterburning) from them they'll do even better. Thats long enough range to fire R-77's using IRST which means you NEVER get a RWR beep until the missile is in the terminal phase and the firing platform is long gone.

Sure, once you get in close range doesn't mean so much but R-73's and R-74's are programmed to keep following if their first attack isn't accurate enough. Extra fuel will help immensely with that and will also make any close quarters explosions even bigger.



lol ... no pretty much any expert in this field agrees with me. Between the OLS and the Zhuk AE the options for a Sukhoi delivered say, next year. Surpass the F-35 in EVERY sensor category when its eventually delivered to us in 2018.



During our second last batch of exercises with RMAF. There was a number of 'unofficial' quotes from pilots of both air forces saying that they were either pleased with how their missile performs or upset with theirs. You can guess which side lost those exercises thanks to its nearly redundant US equipment.



The people who say the R-77 isn't more agile are talking out their arses and are usually no less biased then Skrip00. The ventrical fins are superior in the amount of surface area that turns the wind. Its as simple as that. Have a think about it. Its just plain logic.

Oh and it wouldn't have to hit the AMRAAM at a decent rate to be helpful. Russian jets can in general carry more R-77's then US jets can carry AMRAAM's and Russian jets are cheaper ... to the point where you can sometimes get a dozen for the price of a single US jet especially if you're a valued US customer like Australia /sarcasm



Then you'd be lying. The AIM-54 was an effective missile when used properly against fighters and its so far behind the R-37 and KS-172 its just embarassing. The trick is to not fire the moment you get a target on your screen. You're supposed to wait until you're so close that even if they turn and burn the missile will still catch them. Its called the no escape range and your guys probably never taught the Iranian's this ... or for that matter exactly how quick a Mig-25 turns and burns.

Regardless ... until the Iraqi's learnt to disappear the moment they got RWR signals quite a number of them got taken out by that nasty missile. But you can hardly use the experience of a bunch of barely trained third world pilots as a clear cut case of how effective a long range missile is.

Additionally, quite a number of the long range missile seekers are designed directly to counter ECM and coupled with the powerful phased array's in most of the aircraft that fire them ... its literally impossible to jam them anyway.

As for claiming that the USA has superior short and medium range missiles ... thats just laughable. Lets sum it up:

At short range you have a faulty first generation off boresight AIM-9x with a maximum range of 18km
vs.
The Russian R-74m with a maximum range of 40km, numerous capabilities the AIM-9x doesn't have such as better ECCM, rearward firing, reprogrammable flight envelopes, more seeker options, better sensors available ... and the only country with 20 years experience with off bore sight missiles to make sure it works.

At medium range you have the comparatively recently developed AMRAAM with a maximum range of 70km and most commonly cited range of 50km.
vs.
The more agile, longer ranged R-77 and its big nasty brother the R-77M which has 2.5x the longest cited range of the AMRAAM and thats before you get into the fact that the R-77 is capable against more kinds of targets, has more seeker options and is cheaper out of the box.


And I agree whole heartedly!


No ... I think that you've forced us into that path. You've manipulated and bribed our elected officials into buying the biggest pieces of trash you guys have had to offer while withholding the better equipment because you think we're not a good enough ally. And for the first time we're facing a credible aerial threat in our region and all you guys want to talk about is terrorism and collapsing banks. What are we supposed to do? Take the dregs you force on us or guy buy better equipment from the guys arming our region (who have been offering it to us for quite some time now).



2008 - 1984 = ?



Lockheed Martin's claims mean nothing. They're about the biggest liars in the game. For them public perception is more important then military realities.

And besides where exactly is the F-35 going to get this magic maneouvreability? Does it have invisible LERX's and wing extentions? Does its engine produce more thrust then it actually does? Does it weigh less then it actually does? The answer to all of those questions is no. The F-35 is going to be about as agile as a dog thrown via catapult.

The F-16 and Su-27 both have LERX's and lower take off weights.

The Su-27 has more lift generating surfaces and much higher thrust.

End of story. No more discussion.


We could ... but the Super Hornet deal should be getting cancelled after the current government completes its Air Combat Review. The only reason that deal was penned was because the previous (conservative) government got a good proportion of its electoral funding from US defence lobbyists. The Super Hornet for what we need it for is a poorer aircraft then the Hornet and its supposed to be replacing the F-111. Oh yeah and we paid double what Singapore paid for them ... cos we're so bloody nice.


Please do. But also note that at supersonic speeds thrust vectoring trumps all control surfaces. So only the F-15ACTIVE could really make this claim against the TVC sukhoi's.



Russia is pretty much the world supplier of Titanium. Their aircraft have higher levels of titanium then that quite regularly.



You're entirely correct. Maybe Australia should get the Mig-35. Its a pretty neat little package and a reasonable price. Maybe some Mig-35's with some heavy RA coating or if the plasma stealth systems are ready those. And then some Su-34's to seal the deal. We'd be investing in similar types to what we already have ... but with the best capabilities in the region again.

Gees you talk a lot of rubbish, Senor.

Is prattleon still on?

As hot as I am getting to reading you two talk dirty to each other, take it to the PMs plx.