RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 12:32:01 AM

NickD

Posts: 163
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline

The plane was outside the range of civilian air traffic control radar when the beacon was turned off over the South China Sea, but was tracked by Thai military radar as it turned west (the Thai government didn't pass this on for a week or so for some reason). It was tracked by Malaysian Air Force radar as it overflew the country, and then headed into the Indian Ocean and outside of radar range. Apparently the Indian air defence radar in the Andaman Islands should have been able to track it as well, but it was turned off at the time. Australia's Jindalee over-the-horizon system could have tracked it over the Indian Ocean, but it needs to be directed at specific areas, and apparently wasn't looking at this area at the time (or probably ever). I think that we might be getting off topic

(in reply to Spookyashell)

Post #: 31

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 12:44:07 AM

Spookyashell

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline

By tracking do you mean they had a fixed position on the plane? Everything I've read about it shows 2 huge corridors where the plane possibly was from what military radars was able to pick up. But they had no fixed position on the plane after they lost it not long after the beacon was turned off. Maybe Norwegian media was badly informed. But this was about 2 weeks after it happened, so the info should have been out by then.

Are you sure the articles you read said the radars was tracking the plane or just picked up some signals? Like I said, I don't know I just refer to what was in Norwegian media, and they were all over the story. It was main news for about 3 weeks.

(in reply to NickD)

Post #: 32

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 12:51:35 AM

Spookyashell

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NickD

Can F-22s and F-35s really feasibly routinely operate without AWACS support as that infographic shows? Flying around with their radars on to detect incoming aircraft would obviously compromise their stealth features, and Australia has recently spent a small fortune buying Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft which are intended to operate with its F-35s. The F/A-18Gs are also meant to support the F-35s once they arrive so I'm sceptical about the infographic claiming that jammers won't be needed either.

F-22 will never see combat. The plane can't even take rain without destroying the radarabsorbing coat covering the fuselage. Not to speak of up to 100 hours of maintainace for every hour in the air. They plane is also so expensive that the US don't want to use them in combat in fear of losses. Also problems with oxygen they still haven't figured out +++. The F-22 is basicly a disaster. As it stands right now, no more F-22's will be built, it ends at 189 planes.

(in reply to NickD)

Post #: 33

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 1:04:47 AM

NickD

Posts: 163
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell

By tracking do you mean they had a fixed position on the plane?

In short, yes, though nothing was done with the information for some days:
*Malaysia: http://www.smh.com.au/national/mh370-missing-plane-flew-unnoticed-past-malaysian-radar-installations-20140316-34vmn.html
*Thailand: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/malaysia/5332052

The paths from the satellite pings had to be used to figure out where the plane went after it left the range of these radars.

(in reply to Spookyashell)

Post #: 34

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 2:14:30 AM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/F22AssertionsAndFacts.pdf

quote:

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently
requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight
hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has
accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which
then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It�s important to recognize this metric is to be
met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better
than the requirement well before maturity.

quote:

Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently
based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in
Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa
and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.

http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-09-22/cold-weather_34045939

quote:

Air Force Says F-22 Oxygen Problem is Solved
Problem Traced to Unique Combination of Pressure Garment and Cold Weather Survival Gear Worn by Pilots in AK and VA

So, only two units in cold operating climates, and it was the pilots gear, not the plane. Solved in 2012.

Myths busted?

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 4/26/2014 3:15:32 AM >

(in reply to NickD)

Post #: 35

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 2:55:26 AM

Spookyashell

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline

Up to 100 hours, thats worst case scenario. The last report I read said an average of 30 hours maintanance for each hour in the air.

The assertion you linked to said nothing about if the coat could take the rain without breaking (having to be reapplied) it just said the plane performed good in the environments. I'll see if I find the video where the project leader of the JSF program admits that the F-22's radar absorbant coating breaks in contact with water and needs to be reapplied after they land. He also confirm the F-35's can't fly near lightning as it mess up their electronics.
He said they were still working on figuring out the problems on both planes.

About the oxygen problem, In July 2012, the Pentagon concluded that a pressure valve on flight vests worn during high-altitude flights and a carbon air filter were likely sources of at least some hypoxia-like symptoms.

edit: oh and : "It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record.

Likely, not certain, and some not all.

Let me see if I can find the vid on youtube again. Its an interview with the project leader of the F-35 program where he was asked critical questions about the new planes F-22 and F-35

< Message edited by Spookyashell -- 4/26/2014 4:09:25 AM >

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 36

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 3:12:16 AM

Klahn

Posts: 184
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

quote:

ORIGINAL: dillonkbase

"The real question is whether or not the F-35s will get into situations requiring them to out-turn Flankers."

Isn't the point of all aspect missiles to eliminate this need. If an f-35 can turn tail and extend and then fire a missile over the shoulder, why would it need to get into a turning fight. And how did the flanker get that close anyway... I mean I know from the game it can take a large amount of missiles to intercept... but we can turn and extend...

This will be the third time since 1945 that we have confidently declared that modern technology will make dogfighting obsolete.

The first two times we were dead wrong, lets hope we're correct this time, because with a very large number of Western Air forces choosing the F-35 as their sole fighter type the stakes are higher than they have ever been before.

This is doubly true with the naval versions. Neither the B nor the C models carry a gun internally. In fact, the C model has a thrust to weight ratio below unity even at 50% fuel.

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 37

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 3:25:20 AM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

No problem Spookyashell, I'm always interested in seeing any info on this stuff.

From Wiki F-22:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

quote:

In April 2014 the USAF confirmed in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that installation of automatic backup oxygen systems on the F-22 fleet would be completed within twelve months, with Raptors based in Alaska already using the system; that it had been more than 24 months since the last hypoxia-like incident occurred; and that since the F-22 returned to flight in September 2011, it had averaged about 26,000 flying hours a year.

Concerning the stealth vs. Rain issue, all stealth materials degrade even with normal use of the aircraft, but there's infrastructure in place to maintain the desired RCS with these aircraft.

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf

quote:

CLAIM...radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance
troubles, with unexpected shortcomings --... (Para 2)

AF RESPONSE
True.

CLAIM
...such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion... (Para 2)

AF RESPONSE
Not true. Rain is not the cause of skin issues

quote:

CLAIM
...
only 1.7 hours
.... (Para 5)

AF RESPONSE
True based on the FOT&E Report. The F-22 program does not measure mean
time between critical failure.
However, Mean Time Between Maintenance
(MTBM) has dramatically matured from 0.97 in 2004 to 3.22 as demonstrated
by Lot 6 aircraft performance.

This seems to stem from rather dated information that's probably about 10 years old now.

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 4/26/2014 4:29:10 AM >

(in reply to Spookyashell)

Post #: 38

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 3:52:38 AM

Spookyashell

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline

leaked documents, statements from Lockhead Martin engineers, from pentagon personell and such states the plane has serious problems. Ofcoz the pentagon doesn't go out publicly and say our new planes that we spent a trillion on are useless. If the plane was acctually as great as the hype claim the F-22's would not have been cancelled.

A critical failure (on average) every 1.7 hour in the air is terrible.

The exercise PACAFs Pacific Vision on sept 25/08 revealed the United States air superiority is just a fantasy. The exercise was consisted of face the Red Team one hundred Su-27SM, four Su-30 and two Su-35 against Blue Team one hundred F-35, one hundred eighty seven F-22 and four hundred F/A-18E/F. The exercise showed the blue team higher in number of aircraft is double inferior when hundreds of Blue Forces aircraft were lost in the first 20 minutes downed by the Red Forces., on the other hand only 12 aircraft was downed in the Red Team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M

< Message edited by Spookyashell -- 4/26/2014 4:53:11 AM >

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 39

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 4:26:13 AM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

leaked documents, statements from Lockhead Martin engineers, from pentagon personell and such states the plane has serious problems.

So random "leaked documents" or secret stuff that happens to be available to all to read, disgruntled ex Lockheed Martin engineers, and Pentagon personel that have an agenda you mean?

I've seen this stuff before, it's sometimes used to cause the opfor to underestimate capabilities.

Example, the AH-64 Apache claimed low ready rate and mechanical problems just before the 1991 war that proved to be untrue.

Regarding PacVision, it seems the media took it out of context, you can read more details on it here, always remember to take exercises against various aircraft with a huge grain of salt when trying to asertain their capabilities.:

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/January%202009/0109vision.aspx

quote:

The wargame also validated the advantages of the stealth technology that permits B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters to evade radar detection. "We are sure that we can shoot them before they can see us," said one officer.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/

quote:

On Sept 25/08, the RAND Corporation stepped in with a statement of their own concerning the August 2008 Pacific Vision simulation performed under its wide-ranging Project Air Force mandate:

�Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft�

The study doesn't even simulate actual air to air combat or recognize differences in platforms and performance. You really hate the F-22 that much that you'd just accept what the negative media sources tell you without investigating how Pacific Vision was simulated?

Deception and Disinformation, it's out there. http://www.psywarrior.com/DeceptionH.html

I'm still waiting for the Russian Plasma stealth stuff to come to fruition I heard so much about in the 90's.

(in reply to Spookyashell)

Post #: 40

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 4:40:42 AM

Spookyashell

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline

I don't hate the F-22, I love it. But theres been so much smoke around both the F-22 and the F-35 that there has to be a fire somewhere.
You have to agree that if these things were true, the pentagon and US airforce would not admit it, right? But there are always people on the inside that feels the public has the right to know.

I stand by my statement that if the hype of the F-22 was indeed correct the plane would not have been cancelled.

So leaked documents have more credability than official statements. Like the survailance scandal in the US. Official statement, no US citizens are being surveiled by the program, while the leaked docs said they were. And what turned out to be correct?

What governments do best is lie to their people

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 41

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/26/2014 5:12:04 AM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

Well of course there's smoke, these two very advanced aircraft that have so many new technologies there's bound to be some bugs and snags along the line, but I'm not willing to believe they are the complete lemons that some like to claim, especially after years of flying time and testing/upgrading of systems.

I think the cancellation of the F-22 was partly from politics, partly from defense budgets that required the capabilities and money needed to put into the F-35 production, not because of the F-22's lack of performance.

If you were American, you'd have known that most Americans don't exactly trust their government, so the surveillance scandal wasn't really a surprise.

And who is exactly leaking these documents? I'd like to know more about the source rather than eating up all the info printed on a supposed classified leak on a defense project without questioning it's source.

quote:

What governments do best is lie to their people

LOL, Amen to that my friend.

Your completely entitled to your opinion Spookyashell, It's hard to debate who's correct since we're really at the mercy of what's available to the public, and there is a lot of incorrect info out there whether it's offical statements or classified leaks, or simply the local news.

(in reply to Spookyashell)

Post #: 42

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/28/2014 2:32:44 PM

Blu3wolf

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline

I do like how we have gone from the F-35 to MH370 to F-22s already...

The F-35 is a plane I really want to live up to the hype (now that we are committed, more than ever). I have to say the avionics look pretty cool to operate. DAS seems like a really neat concept. LO technology is pretty excellent in concept too. If it lives up to claims in that area that will do more than anything else to put me at ease over it.

_____________________________

To go up, pull back on the stick.
To go down, pull back harder...

Speed is life. Altitude is life insurance.

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 43

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 4/29/2014 11:58:52 PM

Agiel

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell

youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M

You should probably pay attention to what the user name of the guy who posted that video was. That probably clues you in to the impartiality (or rather lack thereof) of this video.

(in reply to Spookyashell)

Post #: 44

RE: 58 more F-35As to Australia - 5/5/2014 9:43:16 AM

NickD

Posts: 163
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline

Australia's PM hinted that the government is considering buying up to 18 F-35Bs: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/05/02/f35-Jump-jets-for-Australia-aircraft-carrier.aspx

(I don't think that it's very likely that this would happen, though the government did promise to greatly increase defence spending to 2% of GDP when it was in opposition before the 2013 election)

< Message edited by NickD -- 5/5/2014 10:46:07 AM >

(in reply to Agiel)

Post #: 45