Jsf (1 Viewer)

[Korn]

Why is the govt insisting on buying the JSF F-35? They are less capable then the F-22 Raptor, carry less payload then the F-111 and are outperformed by new russian fighters. I Dont think there low cost of these planes are worth the shoddyness of them, whats your opinion?

Also is there a reason why Australia can't purchase fighters from Russia?

 

[withoutaface]

Next time you see an F/A-22 hovering in midair give us a yell. The F/A-22 is designed to be an (incredibly expensive) air superiority fighter with a limited amount of strike capability, whereas the JSF has to fulfill a large range of roles, and we can't afford to be shelling out 100-150mil (can't remember, might have even been higher than that) per aeroplane. We can't buy planes from Russia because selling them to countries in the West would defeat the purpose of trying to create superior aircraft to defeat the aircraft of the West.

 

[Korn]

Next time you see an F/A-22 hovering in midair give us a yell. The F/A-22 is designed to be an (incredibly expensive) air superiority fighter with a limited amount of strike capability, whereas the JSF has to fulfill a large range of roles, and we can't afford to be shelling out 100-150mil (can't remember, might have even been higher than that) per aeroplane. We can't buy planes from Russia because selling them to countries in the West would defeat the purpose of trying to create superior aircraft to defeat the aircraft of the West.

Yes but now Russia and the West are allies, so the Cold War rules should really apply. And yeah the Raptors are expensive as but from what I know they are supposed to be better then the JSF

 

[withoutaface]

Alliegences don't last forever, and when they break you want to be prepared. Also the F/A-22 is arguably better for a lot of things, but by its design it's really an air-to-air fighter, whereas the F-35 is air-to-ground. Also keep in mind that you can build 5 JSF's for the price of one F/A-22.

 

[loquasagacious]

From what I hear the JSF is more of an all rounder.

As for not buying russian - it would not go down well in the whitehouse as the military industrial complex uses thumb screws on Bush.

 

[Korn]

Alliegences don't last forever, and when they break you want to be prepared. Also the F/A-22 is arguably better for a lot of things, but by its design it's really an air-to-air fighter, whereas the F-35 is air-to-ground. Also keep in mind that you can build 5 JSF's for the price of one F/A-22.

True they are much more economical, but arent the new russian fighters much better and would kain in a dog fight against the JSF's, and a few of of neighbouring countries have these russian fighters, so wouldn't it be ideal to have fighters that can compete against these?

What I dont get is why wel have to replace the FA-18's?

How do the F-15E's stack up against the JSF, F-22, FA-18, F-111 and new russian fighters

 

[withoutaface]

True they are much more economical, but arent the new russian fighters much better and would kain in a dog fight against the JSF's, and a few of of neighbouring countries have these russian fighters, so wouldn't it be ideal to have fighters that can compete against these?

What I dont get is why wel have to replace the FA-18's?

How do the F-15E's stack up against the JSF, F-22, FA-18, F-111 and new russian fighters

The JSF's don't get into dogfights, the F/A-22's provide support to prevent this.

 

[Korn]

The JSF's don't get into dogfights, the F/A-22's provide support to prevent this.

Yeah but, from what I hear Australia may not be buying any F-22's which I find unusual, which is likely to be due to budgeting reasons

 

[withoutaface]

Yeah but, from what I hear Australia may not be buying any F-22's which I find unusual, which is likely to be due to budgeting reasons

Australia doesn't have any F-15's at present either, I think it's more because in any combat situation we'll most likely be providing support for the Brits or the Yanks, and they have the air superiority fighters to cover us.

 

[Korn]

Australia doesn't have any F-15's at present either, I think it's more because in any combat situation we'll most likely be providing support for the Brits or the Yanks, and they have the air superiority fighters to cover us.

Yeah under normal circumstances that is true, but as a 'Defence' Force they need to plan for what-if scenarios where the US & Brits might not be able to help us, there for we should have our own fighter that are capable of providing this protection

 

[withoutaface]

The what-if scenarios most likely all involve Indonesia, and they have only F-16's (ie the plane the JSF is replacing) so far as I know...

 

[Korn]

The what-if scenarios most likely all involve Indonesia, and they have only F-16's (ie the plane the JSF is replacing) so far as I know...

What about China, Japan and North Korea

 

[withoutaface]

What about China, Japan and North Korea

Their interests in Australia are, and most likely will remain, nominal.

 

[Korn]

Their interests in Australia are, and most likely will remain, nominal.

True, but if the States does something against one of them or the Aust public makes the govt take a strong stance against whaling then it is a possibility, however slight (0.01%?)

 

[ohne]

The F22 might be better in terms of capability but its cost is probably about twice that of the F35. I think it is better to have 100 F35s that about 50 F22s. The F35 will probably be cheaper to maintain over the long run as well because more countries will be using it.

The F111 might be able to carry more payload but it is more of a specialist bomber than a fighter/bomber like the F35. I think we are better off with multi-role aircraft as you get more value for money. The F111s have never really been used for anything. The F111s are now so hopelessly out of date I don't know why they aren't just retired now.

I don't think Russian fighters are anywhere near as capable as the F35. The only other viable option would have been to purchase the Eurofighter Typhoon although I think we are better off waiting a little longer for the superior F35.

 

[loquasagacious]

The strategic and tactical threats to Australia are minimal. Indonesia is not a threat (I can go into reasons...). Any other conflict in the region would definantly involve us operating in support of yanks.

That said it is a very cost effective defence. The set up we are heading to eg purchase of the unarmoured M1s is one where we train and minimally equip forces fly them into a conflict zone and they use US hardware (which they dont themselves have the manpower to run).

I would say the jsf is on the right track. However we need:

A true multi-role ship (eg carrier, troop transport, fleet oiler).
A compatible small arm (whilst nato standard the steyr does not take M16/enfield magazines - eg they jam very quickly)
A foreward positioning airfield in NT/WA.
The B-1 bomber.
The creation of combined ops task forces suitable for rapid and flexible deployment.
More mechanised infantry - in better vehicles.

 

[withoutaface]

The F22 might be better in terms of capability but its cost is probably about twice that of the F35. I think it is better to have 100 F35s that about 50 F22s. The F35 will probably be cheaper to maintain over the long run as well because more countries will be using it.

The F111 might be able to carry more payload but it is more of a specialist bomber than a fighter/bomber like the F35. I think we are better off with multi-role aircraft as you get more value for money. The F111s have never really been used for anything. The F111s are now so hopelessly out of date I don't know why they aren't just retired now.

I don't think Russian fighters are anywhere near as capable as the F35. The only other viable option would have been to purchase the Eurofighter Typhoon although I think we are better off waiting a little longer for the supirior F35.

The cost is actually roughly 1/5 of the F/A-22.

 

[Korn]

The strategic and tactical threats to Australia are minimal. Indonesia is not a threat (I can go into reasons...). Any other conflict in the region would definantly involve us operating in support of yanks.

That said it is a very cost effective defence. The set up we are heading to eg purchase of the unarmoured M1s is one where we train and minimally equip forces fly them into a conflict zone and they use US hardware (which they dont themselves have the manpower to run).

I would say the jsf is on the right track. However we need:

A true multi-role ship (eg carrier, troop transport, fleet oiler).
A compatible small arm (whilst nato standard the steyr does not take M16/enfield magazines - eg they jam very quickly)
A foreward positioning airfield in NT/WA.
The B-1 bomber.
The creation of combined ops task forces suitable for rapid and flexible deployment.
More mechanised infantry - in better vehicles.

I have heard that we will be getting the M-4's for the infantry, and yes we need way better vehicles for the army.
You reckon we should get the B-1 Lancer's, they cost something like $200+ mil each

How much better are the F-22's to the Eurofighter Typhoon's or the Dassault-Breguet Rafale C, cause there better then the Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker. Damn the Raptor's have been in development for a decade

 

[withoutaface]

www.globalsecurity.org
www.fas.org
Good sites for anyone who's interested.

 

[Serius]

the jsf isnt cool enough, i would prefer we had air- air but considering our countrys position the jsf is prolly the smart option