Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > Non Ford Related Community Forums > The Bar

The Bar For non Automotive Related Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-03-2013, 09:51 PM   #91
mik
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
mik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

I hope your right and it turns out to be a pearler,
just after looking at the the four corners from an average ignorant non aviators point of view, it certainly seemed to have some big flaws .
But yeah what`s that old saying, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear .
mik is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-03-2013, 10:03 PM   #92
Peuty
Afterburner + skids =
Donating Member1
 
Peuty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Skidsville
Posts: 12,151
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

I'd trust TruBlu351's opinion over "Dr" Kopp's any day of the week. I'm sure the Lightning II will be fine.
__________________
Speed Kills. So buy an AU XR8 and live forever.

Oo\===/oO
Peuty is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-03-2013, 10:04 PM   #93
tweeked
N/A all the way
 
tweeked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,459
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Just look at the military equipment the US turns out. I cannot imagine that they would spend this kind of coin and time and have it not be a top level machine. Yeah most new generation hardwear has delays and cost overuns, but they get it right in the end.

ABC journalists on the other hand turn out rubbish by the truckload.
__________________
BA GT
5.88 litres of Modular Boss Powered Muscle
300++ RWKW N/A on 98 octane on any dyno, happy or sad, on any day, with any operator you choose - 12.39@115.5 full weight

tweeked is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-03-2013, 10:15 PM   #94
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011G6E View Post
There was a report that came out some years back that said Australia could "very quickly" build at least two nukes if we really needed to. That's not the point though...anyone who has seen "Tomorrow when the war began" or read the books will get a pretty realistic idea of how an invasion would go down...very very quickly, in big numbers, probably by surprise, and our tiny military wouldn't stand a chance.
Therefore we actually need something to put the odds more in our favour...and nothing does that like being able to say to an aggressor massing to the north "Hey...hey look at this", and blowing up a small nuke way out in the middle of nowhere in the desert where it won't hurt anyone, then saying to them "And now...do you really want to push us...?"


Won't ever happen though. If an invasion did happen, our government, just like the books I mentioned, will bend over so fast it wouldn't be funny. The uncomfortable truth is that we'd have to rely on allies like the USA to come and help...if they did...
Are you telling me you beleive an invasion scenario portrayed in a movie aimed at teenagers? *** LOL.
__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
4 users like this post:
Old 07-03-2013, 10:55 PM   #95
TruBlu351
3 Pedals R Better Than 2
 
TruBlu351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 5,241
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: Has given endless help in the cleveland section over the years. Knows his stuff and happily tests on the track and gives no fuss results. 
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Just a few examples from that 4 Corners vid.....

The self proclaimed experts all bag the JSF idea....but never back that whining up with a viable solution.

The guy that owns his "simulation" company ran that stupid war game where there's a heap of Su-27s vs some JSFs. He has the JSFs dropping like flies.....that's just a garbage in garbage out simulation where he sets all the parameters in his own software. There's nothing credible about it. For starters, the Su-27 radars would never have picked up the JSFs on their radars in the first place. Can't shoot your long range radar missiles when there's nothing on your radar screen ;)

Was just talking to a few of the F16 lads from the US. They had one setup with 8 x F16s vs 2 x F22s. Guess who won?!! The F16s had their radar jammers on full power and did all they could to stay alive.....within a very short time, they were all "dead" and never saw a thing! It was like clubbing baby seals Having a lower observable/stealth 5th Gen capability and one of the best electronic warfare suites on board, it puts you way ahead of any 4th Gen fighter (high performance but no stealth).

Tell me about any production vehicle test phase that doesn't have bugs to iron out.....just like Ford or Holden making a new vehicle....but Holden would have a lot more though!! Many of the negative 4 Corners statements from those "experts" were made made over 5 years ago, or referred to defects that were found on "test" aircraft ages ago, but were made to sound like these problems were only happening last week. There still are bugs getting ironed out, but there are fixes in place.....all part of the OT&E phase of any platform (operational test and evaluation)....granted, this one has blown out a fair bit.

Mr Goooon from Air Power Australia, along with Mr Kopp (self proclaimed experts) have their heads in the cold war ice age sand. They won't be satisfied until they dig up the F-111s and get them flying again.

.....the JSF doesn't have TFR (Terrain Following Radar) like the F-111, they say....so it won't be able to sneak into targets areas below the radar at 150ft at night. You don't need to "fly below the radar" in a JSF. That's a 4th Gen fighter mindset. With a JSF you have the option to fly at high altitude, right inside the radar coverage area, even with the target area heavily defended with modern SAMs.

Maybe they can learn from a few classic movie quotes from Predator!!...it puts a whole new spin on the game when you can become invisible!!

Poncho: She says the jungle... it just came alive and took him.

Dutch: What the hell are you?
Predator: [distorted replay] What the hell are you?

Poncho: Not a thing. Not a ********** trace. No blood, no bodies... We hit nothing!

What about that poor French guy that travelled all the way from Paris to sell Australia some French Rafale fighter jets. I felt so sorry for him when he'd only just arrived and our government announced the JSF deal before he even got a chance to open his briefcase and offer us a deal....lol. Who gives a flying rats backside? Send him home with his old piece of junk toys As if that thing would ever be a credible solution to take us into the next 30 years....
__________________
XE Falcon - Under Construction
434 E85 Lawn Dart underway

TruBlu351 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-03-2013, 09:20 AM   #96
2011G6E
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
2011G6E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: On The Footplate.
Posts: 5,086
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_Warrior View Post
Are you telling me you beleive an invasion scenario portrayed in a movie aimed at teenagers? *** LOL.
No...I believe military reports over the years of the strength of the countries to our north.
Remember the big riots in Jakarta some years ago? The Indonesian military mobilised just one division of their army to patrol and quell the riots...and that one division was larger in number than our entire combined manpower numbers in the air force, navy, and army.
Basically, if it happened, it wouldn't be a fair fight...


Back to the F35...there was a Pentagon report revealed in the last few days that said it had numerous problems, ones that matter to Australia and Canada. If it gets too cold, parts of it won't operate. If it gets a bit hot and one small part shuts down, the whole plane becomes useless. It's designed to work in a narrow band of temperatures.
More importantly, the pilots who are being trained to fly the plane can't do anything much more than take off and fly straight ahead gently...no tight turns, no sharp climbing or diving, no speed above Mach 0.9...and these are the pilots who might be flying it one day in combat! That's like sending out a V8 Supercar driver for training and saying "Now drive it like grandma, nice and slow...don't worry about what will happen on sunday when you are forced to drive it in anger".

There's been so much money poured into it that they won't skip this plane and go on to something else...they've gone too far into it.
Interestingly, they don't "skip" plane numbers...it didn't jump from F111 to F14, it didn't skip from F18 to F22...the numbers in between are apparently planned models that didn't work out or never got beyond prototype stage...but the F35 has had so much money thrown at it that they doggedly just have to keep trying.
2011G6E is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-03-2013, 09:31 AM   #97
Polyal
The 'Stihl' Man
Donating Member2
 
Polyal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TAS
Posts: 27,591
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

I also saw that doco and couldnt believe how this thing has been pushed out. Tell me again why Australia needs these? I think its an awesome (to be) bit of kit.

I will admit to having NFI about these jets nor their history but even if what some of the stuff in the doco is true then wow..its a little bit out of control.

Whats a typical development cycle for these things?

I too felt sorry for that French guy, it bothers me we have such people in politics running the show and what credintials do they actually have? They just get handed portfolios FFS.
__________________
  • 2017 Toyota Prado (work hack)
  • 2017 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
  • 2003 CL7 Honda Accord Euro R (JDM) - K20A 6MT
  • 1999 Lexus IS200 - 1G-FE Turbo 6MT
  • 1973 ZF Ford Fairlane
Polyal is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-03-2013, 12:10 PM   #98
PridenJoy
Donating Member
Donating Member1
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,573
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: For his contributions to the forum, especially showcased with his highly detailed AU build threads. He is a fountain of AU knowledge. 
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polyal View Post

I too felt sorry for that French guy, it bothers me we have such people in politics running the show and what credintials do they actually have? They just get handed portfolios FFS.
I quite often think about that. Many countries have an ex-General/Admiral etc as their defence ministers (including USA) but we tend to just trust anyone to do the job, not very smart I don't think.
PridenJoy is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-03-2013, 12:44 PM   #99
Silver Ghia
Moderator
Donating Member3
 
Silver Ghia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Foothills of the Macedon Ranges
Posts: 18,606
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: As Silver Ghia his contributions to the AU and BA technical areas have been of high quality and valuable to the member base. 
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011G6E View Post
Back to the F35...there was a Pentagon report revealed in the last few days that said it had numerous problems, ones that matter to Australia and Canada. If it gets too cold, parts of it won't operate. If it gets a bit hot and one small part shuts down, the whole plane becomes useless. It's designed to work in a narrow band of temperatures.
More importantly, the pilots who are being trained to fly the plane can't do anything much more than take off and fly straight ahead gently...no tight turns, no sharp climbing or diving, no speed above Mach 0.9...and these are the pilots who might be flying it one day in combat! That's like sending out a V8 Supercar driver for training and saying "Now drive it like grandma, nice and slow...don't worry about what will happen on sunday when you are forced to drive it in anger".
Believe that, if that what was reported, and you probably believe anything that's reported in the media. Very misleading.
Silver Ghia is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-03-2013, 02:13 PM   #100
burnz
VFII SS UTE
 
burnz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,353
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011G6E View Post

Back to the F35...there was a Pentagon report revealed in the last few days that said it had numerous problems, ones that matter to Australia and Canada. If it gets too cold, parts of it won't operate. If it gets a bit hot and one small part shuts down, the whole plane becomes useless. It's designed to work in a narrow band of temperatures.
.
sorry to butcher your post:

but if temperature is a problem, then the plane cant go over 2,000 feet.
gets -50*~-180* up there, a lot colder than canada..
__________________
I don't often hear the sound of a screaming LSX.
But when I do, So do the neighbours..
GO SOUTHS
burnz is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-03-2013, 08:35 PM   #101
Keepleft
Mot Adv-NSW
 
Keepleft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Macquarie, NSW
Posts: 2,153
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Political questions:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=0Gzj-d80Q5U

This Pdf will be of interest, you may choose right click and 'save':-
http://cryptome.org/dodi/2013/dsca13-0308.pdf


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011G6E View Post
No...I believe military reports over the years of the strength of the countries to our north.
Remember the big riots in Jakarta some years ago? The Indonesian military mobilised just one division of their army to patrol and quell the riots...and that one division was larger in number than our entire combined manpower numbers in the air force, navy, and army.
Basically, if it happened, it wouldn't be a fair fight...
They wouldn't stand all that much chance, actually - so your right - it wouldn't be a fair fight. They have enough trouble in West Papua, despite 20-30years of transmigrassi of predominately Javanese into that melanesian land.

Yes, their defences are modernizing and they are training with us, and the yanks again. Their main concern is China, hence her new fighters are based 'north'.

Last edited by Keepleft; 11-03-2013 at 08:41 PM.
Keepleft is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 13-03-2013, 11:33 PM   #102
ford man xf
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,674
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011G6E View Post
No...I believe military reports over the years of the strength of the countries to our north.
Remember the big riots in Jakarta some years ago? The Indonesian military mobilised just one division of their army to patrol and quell the riots...and that one division was larger in number than our entire combined manpower numbers in the air force, navy, and army.
Basically, if it happened, it wouldn't be a fair fight...
Don't be fooled into believeing that an armies size wins wars.
__________________
Quote:
It's pretty amusing though, considering the XR8 next year will be reborn with the same spec engine as the FG GT, could you imagine being a HSV owner forking out all that money on a brand new GTS, then pulling up to the lights next to a FH XR8 and then sitting side by side all the way to 100 and beyond
Even more embarrasing would be the lower spec variants of the VF in HSV's stable getting whopped by a factory XR8.
ford man xf is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 13-03-2013, 11:42 PM   #103
TruBlu351
3 Pedals R Better Than 2
 
TruBlu351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 5,241
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: Has given endless help in the cleveland section over the years. Knows his stuff and happily tests on the track and gives no fuss results. 
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

It'd be a turkey shoot as they try to cross that mote!!
__________________
XE Falcon - Under Construction
434 E85 Lawn Dart underway

TruBlu351 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-03-2013, 10:51 AM   #104
mik
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
mik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keepleft View Post
Political questions:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=0Gzj-d80Q5U

This Pdf will be of interest, you may choose right click and 'save':-
http://cryptome.org/dodi/2013/dsca13-0308.pdf



They wouldn't stand all that much chance, actually - so your right - it wouldn't be a fair fight. They have enough trouble in West Papua, despite 20-30years of transmigrassi of predominately Javanese into that melanesian land.

Yes, their defences are modernizing and they are training with us, and the yanks again. Their main concern is China, hence her new fighters are based 'north'.
Good find Keepleft, the aircraft still looks like a major turkey.
mik is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-03-2013, 11:29 AM   #105
Theo@BluePower
Bluepower
Donating Member1
 
Theo@BluePower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,266
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

The Biggest problem with the JSF product is the existence of the F22.

Maritime strike, backfires over the horizon from our northern neighbors is a pretty big deal.......

Fighting wars in the air is more than just one aircraft, the F22 is totally useless without its supporting team (rivet joint/awacs/tankers)st like any other aircraft.

The Raptor is impressive, putting it mildly, the JSF is at best unproven. Since we need range and stealth, it almost writes off JSF from the get go.

To understand how an aircraft will go in combat means we need to analyse past conflicts and apply techniques of the past to the present and see how technology would change them.

Vectored thrust in SU30 Family is apparently MANUALLY OPERATED. In combat, the more things you need to think about over and above breaking out an opponent on radar or running for good deflection on a cannon shot you may find out all too late that its a 2v1 not a 1v1. 2v1 with hornet/eagle/falcon with western tactics have proven, loosely based on the irsaeli model to be extremely effective. over 100 wins to zero air to air losses in the F15 must tell you that stealth etc is only part of the deal.

I cannot see our adversaries being able to afford large numbers of 5th gen aircraft coming on line.

Our Superhornet boys have got good range, good weapons and good tactics. Over water dirty configuration i would back them over the sukhoi all things considered.

The JSF wont fly as far. That bothers me, makes our country smaller.

We need 20 raptors, 120 Rhino's and growlers and possibly some JSF's in case we fight over our own land.

That gives us

Air superiority over water
Air superiority over land
Long range maritime strike with stealth.

12 backfire's coming over the horizon?? really? Imagine that. 4 raptors on a top end BARcap will sort it, with 4 more on standby at 77sq.

Then again, im just a mechanic

Chris
__________________
Blue Power Racing Developments
Bluepower website
47 Cooper Street Campbellfield Vic
03 9305 3000

Theo@BluePower is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
This user likes this post:
Old 14-03-2013, 11:43 AM   #106
mik
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
mik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlu351 View Post
It'd be a turkey shoot as they try to cross that mote!!
my worry would be it`s an awful big mote.
mik is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-03-2013, 09:50 PM   #107
bungarra
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 489
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo@BluePower View Post
The Biggest problem with the JSF product is the existence of the F22.

Maritime strike, backfires over the horizon from our northern neighbors is a pretty big deal.......

Fighting wars in the air is more than just one aircraft, the F22 is totally useless without its supporting team (rivet joint/awacs/tankers)st like any other aircraft.

The Raptor is impressive, putting it mildly, the JSF is at best unproven. Since we need range and stealth, it almost writes off JSF from the get go.

To understand how an aircraft will go in combat means we need to analyse past conflicts and apply techniques of the past to the present and see how technology would change them.

Vectored thrust in SU30 Family is apparently MANUALLY OPERATED. In combat, the more things you need to think about over and above breaking out an opponent on radar or running for good deflection on a cannon shot you may find out all too late that its a 2v1 not a 1v1. 2v1 with hornet/eagle/falcon with western tactics have proven, loosely based on the irsaeli model to be extremely effective. over 100 wins to zero air to air losses in the F15 must tell you that stealth etc is only part of the deal.

I cannot see our adversaries being able to afford large numbers of 5th gen aircraft coming on line.

Our Superhornet boys have got good range, good weapons and good tactics. Over water dirty configuration i would back them over the sukhoi all things considered.

The JSF wont fly as far. That bothers me, makes our country smaller.

We need 20 raptors, 120 Rhino's and growlers and possibly some JSF's in case we fight over our own land.

That gives us

Air superiority over water
Air superiority over land
Long range maritime strike with stealth.

12 backfire's coming over the horizon?? really? Imagine that. 4 raptors on a top end BARcap will sort it, with 4 more on standby at 77sq.

Then again, im just a mechanic

Chris
And to make sure it all works well, JORN watches them take off and land from the bases to the north and the range of JORN for "antiquated technology" as the media put it, is very effective, picked up the B1B and F117 on Transits.
bungarra is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2013, 04:54 AM   #108
2011G6E
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
2011G6E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: On The Footplate.
Posts: 5,086
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

The yanks won't sell us the F22...that's the only problem.

Is it true that the F15 is the only modern fighter/bomber that has never been shot down in combat...?

If so...and our government could overcome it's need to have the latest and shiniest toys...then maybe some F15's would be a good choice...?

Then again, they threw away the perfectly suited F111 didn't they...
2011G6E is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2013, 05:48 AM   #109
burnz
VFII SS UTE
 
burnz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,353
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

f111 and f15 dont have parts, the wreaking yard is empty..
__________________
I don't often hear the sound of a screaming LSX.
But when I do, So do the neighbours..
GO SOUTHS
burnz is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
This user likes this post:
Old 15-03-2013, 05:54 PM   #110
bungarra
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 489
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by burnz View Post
f111 and f15 dont have parts, the wreaking yard is empty..
Israel has just been modernising F15C and D models, part of that is manufacturing components via IMI not otherwise available after using one F15for a template air craft and from their Lavi design fighter that was being developed when the US first refused to sell F16's to Israel.
bungarra is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL