Wow havent seen this topic for a while. I think the labor govt is honouring the old contracts with both F18 and F35. Only difference is that they may have to buy 75 F35's instead of 100 due to the economic crisis.
Chances are they will stick to the contract. The money for the Eurofighters they were thinking of buying went into the F-18/F35 decision. Remember it from a show the ABC ran on it ages ago.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Well as long as the F18's keep buzzing Flecco's house, I consider it all worthwhile.
It does look nice...
After talking with some Lockheed reps, it sounds like a good aircraft. It's performance figures are pretty decent. It's no F-22 in the air superiority department, but seems like a better compromise than I originally thought.
After talking with some Lockheed reps, it sounds like a good aircraft. It's performance figures are pretty decent. It's no F-22 in the air superiority department, but seems like a better compromise than I originally thought.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-10-30 08:25:50)
a bit more about our own airforce over here in dutchland, on the subject of F-18's being a waste.. depends on how much time it'll take to replace the airforce with F35's, expensive but definately a good place holder.
F-35's are indeed good aircraft, our gov. is _probably_ going to buy them too, though they're mainly a fighter-bomber, I read somewhere about a year or so ago that the performance of the F-35 in aerial combat is on F-16 level, nice - but won't hold against the modern foe. Hence I'd like to see some eurofighters too, to still be very competitive on the air to air field.
This stuff those analysts and "experts" say about that dogfighting is a thing of the past is total bullcrap imo, that in Iraq <twice> the americans fought planes which were heavily outdated in comparison to theirs doesn't mean every air fight will be decided beyond visual range. (hence I suppose the american military put thrust vectoring on their F-22's, though I think it could be more of a disadvantage to the pilot unless the other pilot is literally on his tail, loose too much airspeed by doing nice pirouettes and you become a rather large target that's standing still for a while.)
Also, I think that the F-22 and the Eurofighter would make an excellent (if not amazing) team, they complement eachother quite nicely. Air superiority is important before you start sending out all your bombers, F-35's being good (incredible) for dropping a bomb quickly and getting out without being detected, they're kind of helpless if they would face modern air superiority fighters, and to make your entire airforce consist out of ONLY planes which are basically meant for bombing stuff and taking out less-advanced aircraft seems like a bad idea, imo ((and while doing this relying COMPLETELY on their stealth capabilities)). Variety is good and healthy for your airforce.
F-35's are indeed good aircraft, our gov. is _probably_ going to buy them too, though they're mainly a fighter-bomber, I read somewhere about a year or so ago that the performance of the F-35 in aerial combat is on F-16 level, nice - but won't hold against the modern foe. Hence I'd like to see some eurofighters too, to still be very competitive on the air to air field.
This stuff those analysts and "experts" say about that dogfighting is a thing of the past is total bullcrap imo, that in Iraq <twice> the americans fought planes which were heavily outdated in comparison to theirs doesn't mean every air fight will be decided beyond visual range. (hence I suppose the american military put thrust vectoring on their F-22's, though I think it could be more of a disadvantage to the pilot unless the other pilot is literally on his tail, loose too much airspeed by doing nice pirouettes and you become a rather large target that's standing still for a while.)
Also, I think that the F-22 and the Eurofighter would make an excellent (if not amazing) team, they complement eachother quite nicely. Air superiority is important before you start sending out all your bombers, F-35's being good (incredible) for dropping a bomb quickly and getting out without being detected, they're kind of helpless if they would face modern air superiority fighters, and to make your entire airforce consist out of ONLY planes which are basically meant for bombing stuff and taking out less-advanced aircraft seems like a bad idea, imo ((and while doing this relying COMPLETELY on their stealth capabilities)). Variety is good and healthy for your airforce.
inane little opines
Yeah, I'm sure they're gonna talk bad about it...RAIMIUS wrote:
After talking with some Lockheed reps, it sounds like a good aircraft.
But yeah, I love the look of it.
The F-35 far exceeds the F-16 in the air-to-air department. It is second only to the F-22...to include the Rafale, Typhoon, and Su-27 derivatives.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I play FSX and it has F-18s so I am an expert on this subject and my answer is:
Upgrade your CPU to increase the frame rates on the jets you currently have.
Upgrade your CPU to increase the frame rates on the jets you currently have.
Aren't they having serious problems with the JSF not being able to take off and land vertically when it is carrying a full load of bombs?
san I thought VTOL was only used in specific situations when required and would be avoided when they are carrying a full load of ordinance anyway?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
we dont have aircraft carriers anymore.... so we dont need them to take off/ land vertically anyway lolsan4 wrote:
Aren't they having serious problems with the JSF not being able to take off and land vertically when it is carrying a full load of bombs?
huh?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
we dont have aircraft carriers anymore.... so we dont need them to take off/ land vertically anyway lol
?usmarine wrote:
huh?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
we dont have aircraft carriers anymore.... so we dont need them to take off/ land vertically anyway lol
?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
?usmarine wrote:
huh?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
we dont have aircraft carriers anymore.... so we dont need them to take off/ land vertically anyway lol
i see ur pointusmarine wrote:
?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
?usmarine wrote:
huh?
i dont understand what vertical takeoff and aircraft carriers have to do with anything.
well, our F-35s would only be taking off from air force bases, so why would they need to take off vertically?usmarine wrote:
i dont understand what vertical takeoff and aircraft carriers have to do with anything.
because sometimes a runway is not always the best option. hence the harrier.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
well, our F-35s would only be taking off from air force bases, so why would they need to take off vertically?usmarine wrote:
i dont understand what vertical takeoff and aircraft carriers have to do with anything.
however im guessing on 90% of missions they wouldnt take of vertically anyway.... handy thing to have, but not stictly nessesaryusmarine wrote:
because sometimes a runway is not always the best option. hence the harrier.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
well, our F-35s would only be taking off from air force bases, so why would they need to take off vertically?usmarine wrote:
i dont understand what vertical takeoff and aircraft carriers have to do with anything.
i never needed to use my gas mask, but i sure as hell was happy to have it just in case.
Lol i think his whole argument has been pointless.usmarine wrote:
i never needed to use my gas mask, but i sure as hell was happy to have it just in case.
pretty sure we both agree we'd rather F-35s that actually take off/land vertically over ones that dont
indubitablyLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
Lol i think his whole argument has been pointless.usmarine wrote:
i never needed to use my gas mask, but i sure as hell was happy to have it just in case.
pretty sure we both agree we'd rather F-35s that actually take off/land vertically over ones that dont
Except STOVL take more maintenance and presumably have less range and payload than conventional aircraft.
Hence Aus, with very long distances to cover and no aircraft carriers is most likely better off with conventional aircraft.
If we ever get into the situation where we are fighting a larger enemy who has a foothold on Australian soil we are pretty much screwed, so temporary airfields and suchlike are probably not a bundle of use to us.
Hence Aus, with very long distances to cover and no aircraft carriers is most likely better off with conventional aircraft.
If we ever get into the situation where we are fighting a larger enemy who has a foothold on Australian soil we are pretty much screwed, so temporary airfields and suchlike are probably not a bundle of use to us.
Fuck Israel
Not all F35 variants will be STOVL (as opposed to VTOL). I'm guessing the Aussies are planning to buy the F35A, which is the variant the USAF is procuring (USMC&RAF=F35B (STOVL), USN=F35C).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Actually the defense dept is looking into buying one. Its also wants to equip it with VTOL aircraft. sourceLittle baby jesus wrote:
we dont have aircraft carriers anymore.... so we dont need them to take off/ land vertically anyway lol
Its a pretty ambitious spending program, and realistically some of it may not be an option after the financial probs we are having. I also read that we were interested in buying some VTOL F35s but unfortunately I cant get onto the RAAF website to provide a link.