The F-35 is seriously limited in air combat. The idea that the F-35 can hold the enemy at bay with beyond-visual-range weapons (like AMRAAM) needs some examination. That missile only has around a 50 percent probability of kill in combat. Less vs. targets with a proper defensive system. The enemy gets a vote. With the enemy having higher performance aircraft and sensors that can degrade stealth, ASPI's theory of F-35 combat capability is shady. Even if the F-22 didn't have stealth it would be of great value. A side-bar on F-35 and stealth.
When the Corsair and P-38 showed up in the Pacific in the last World War, the Japanese stated they could no longer control how they wanted to fight air battles. The Corsair and P-38 could decide how they wanted to enter the battle.
Just like the F-22.
The F-35 is not just a little F-22.
The F-35 has significant project risks in all areas: cost, and combat capability.
"And as for air-to-air gunfighting, as practiced in the January trial, oh please—the 1960s called and wants its top guns back."
Consider that thought here. Also here and here. How the F-35 will avoid such glaring problems is worrying.
How about the much higher performance F-22 (again where AMRAAM is not 100 percent PK)
... F-18 vs. F-22
Rafale?
We will know if the F-35 is a capable aircraft against emerging threats if it can consistently defeat the Typhoon (a distant but good enough analogue to the SU-3x) and the F-22: a distant but reasonable analogue to the PAK-FA (reducing production only until the new motor comes out).
Where is this test? Important because the USMC is going to declare initial operating capability soon.
So, even today's combat aircraft will be a threat to the F-35.
Why we must continue to fund the ASPI for such bad advice is beyond me. Yet another thing for the inbox of elected officials who care about reforming Defence leadership.
Although given how Defence leadership is a rigged game today, that may take awhile.
Until then, let us continue to shovel more billions into the burn pit.
-----
More: The Defence Minster has silly talking points:
It also must be 'save the F-35 day in Canberra.' The Defence Minister has come out with Lockheed Martin talking points to use as cover for the unsurvivable F-35. (subscription with The Australian. Print edition is page 3 "JSF loses dogfight with aged jet" --Brendan Nicholson-7 July 2015).
The F-35 was picked by Howard, Hill and Houston with no critical risk assessment back in 2002.
It has numerous problems and is unlikely to be affordable, sustainable, lethal or survivable.
In effect, someone has handed the empty-suit DM a set of talking points and left it at that.
The DM parrots that combat is no longer done with dogfights and close in. This doesn't stand up to any scrutiny to those of this that have been following this program, as well as history...
...for years.
Our Lockmart Defence Minister the reader knows that what fought in the report is an old F-35 without all the war systems in it.
This is true. However improved airframe performance will not be that much. What "fought" the F-35 was the most weak of F-16s: an old two-seater.
The basic elements of the F-35 airframe can't be improved enough with hardware. It will be an improvement with the war systems on it but not enough to keep it from getting killed.
The DM wrongly states that the F-35 'radar' sees all around it. This is not true. Nose aspect only. Now I know what they mean (DAS) but that has huge problems. As well as the helmet cueing and so much more. Both hardware and software have problems with hair on them.
Next the DM tries to sell us on "virtually invisible" stealth on the F-35. There is no such thing.
That the aircraft doesn't need to dogfight? Any low-energy aircraft with limited weapons can get killed against today's threats. Badly. Even when the F-35 is declared finished. It is an obsolete design based on the idea that post Cold War, the U.S. and Allies would face broken down air forces.
All in all we see (again) that Defence has trouble telling us the truth about defective weapon systems.
It is the job of our elected officials to get to the bottom of this massive, multi-billion dollar deception.
Anything that is provided without evidence, can be dismissed, without evidence. That is the bucket that our Defence Minister stands in when we examine his unsupportable F-35 talking points.
---
-DOT&E Report: The F-35 Is Not Ready for IOC and Won't Be Any Time Soon
-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel
-F-35 deliveries
-ADF's wacky F-35 assumptions
-Gauging performance, the 2008 F-35, Davis dream brief
-Aboriginal brought out as a prop
-Super Kendall's F-35 problem
-LM sales force in pre-Internet era
-History of F-35 engine problems
-Compare
-JSF hopes and dreams...early days of the Ponzi Scheme
-The Prognostics
-2002--Australia joins the F-35 program
-Congressional Research Service--Through to FY2013, F-35 has received $83.3B in funding
-F-35 choice gives Dutch a shocking high cost per flight hour
-More indications that the F-35 is a failed program
-From the year 2000. Very insightful. The JSF: One More Card In The House (PDF)
“It will affordable because already there are 3,000 aircraft on the order books.”
—27 June 2002, Air Marshal Houston, Defence press announcement, Australia joins the F-35 program—
No comments:
Post a Comment