Too much faith in stealth technology?

[wuzak]

Going full circle here (a bit) the F-117A during the Gulf War had an 80% accuracy rate according to the USAF. The -117A was designed to not only give a better accuracy rate when compared to other fighter bombers at the time, but to be able to penetrate hardened bunkers

Isn't the penetration capabilities a function of the ordinance rather than the airframe?

Though, I suppose, it also requires bombs to be dropped from higher altitudes to get that penetration capability. And at higher altitudes the F-117 was more survivable due to its stealth design.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Isn't the penetration capabilities a function of the ordinance rather than the airframe?

You've got to get it there and acquire a target. Having the ability to do it requires some help from a platform.

Though, I suppose, it also requires bombs to be dropped from higher altitudes to get that penetration capability. And at higher altitudes the F-117 was more survivable due to its stealth design.

Maybe - I think it depended on what was being targeted.

 

[parsifal]

The A-10 is perfectly suited for it's environment. Why replace a weapon system like the A-10 that is still very effective, not too high tech (perfect characteristic for a plane that will at some point take some damage), reliable, tough, and deadly. Why even gamble loosing a F-35 when the A-10's are still available, and up to the task, and tougher. Thinking like that does not make sense to me. Reminds me of the old story about the US spending a ton of cash trying to develop a ink pen that can write in space, and the Soviet Union just uses a pencil. Sometimes the low tech approach is the best. K.IS.S.!

One could be cynical and say "because they are old, and there are defence dollars in the offing for a replacement"....

 

[vanir]

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in your post, vanir.

given an intentionally speculative post for an inherently speculative thread topic, that's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? We're talking opinions here really aren't we, my counter argument could easily be to simply conjure up the performance requirements well outside the F-35 or whichevertype's particular sphere of design performance envelope, bingo it isn't so good. What are you going to try to do, argue that it is the ultimate superplane?

Surely you realise as much as me it's more about a tool for the job than a great marketing campaign at the pointy end of the stick. Whilst I don't like the extremism of bloggers like that Air Power Australia group, nevertheless there is an argument that Australian tools should probably be different from American tools, given local geopolitics remains largely outside American influence.

It is my opinion to which I am entitled that the assessment of individuals like Kelly Johnson and that guy who designed the A10 and worked on the F16 who comments on armaments in interviews, their point matter and presentation just sits very well with me as rational and objective, with no personal, patriotic or marketing agendas...or derivative rose glasses. I recognise it is an opinion.

 

[evangilder]

My apologies for the brash start to my post. I was never arguing that the F-35 would be the be-all, do-all aircraft. Unfortunately, when you are trying to do many things at one time, you rarely do any of them very well. That is the problem with multi-role aircraft. It will do all of the missions, but not as well as an aircraft specifically designed for one thing.

I agree that the defense strategies of Australia are quite different than those of the US. Unfortunately, the indigenous aircraft companies of Australia like CAC are pretty much gone now. I don't know the ins and outs of geopolitical maneuvering with regards to defense aircraft procurement, but I would venture to guess that creating a whole new design that would meet all of the needs/wants for the Australian military would be very expensive.

My point was that the B-2 has been used in the Middle East in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the opening round of the NATO engagement in Libya. It's not kept out of combat. While the F-22 has not been used in combat yet, the coatings do last longer than 2-3 sorties. Have they had some issues with the paint? Yes, but they are not as dire as you stated.

 

[wuzak]

My apologies for the brash start to my post. I was never arguing that the F-35 would be the be-all, do-all aircraft. Unfortunately, when you are trying to do many things at one time, you rarely do any of them very well. That is the problem with multi-role aircraft. It will do all of the missions, but not as well as an aircraft specifically designed for one thing.

I agree that the defense strategies of Australia are quite different than those of the US. Unfortunately, the indigenous aircraft companies of Australia like CAC are pretty much gone now. I don't know the ins and outs of geopolitical maneuvering with regards to defense aircraft procurement, but I would venture to guess that creating a whole new design that would meet all of the needs/wants for the Australian military would be very expensive.

Unfortunately the F-35 in Australian service will have to be the be-all and do-all aircraft. There will not be any air superiority fighters like the F-22 or dedicated close air support aircraft. The F-35 will be the only fighter/fighter-bomber/bomber/strike aircraft we wil have.

There was to be an evaluation of future aircraft to fulfill our needs. But in 2002 the government signed onto the F-35 program without doing that evaluation.

Also in 2002 Australia was offered two Sukhoi Su-27s (-30s/-35? one of the variants) for evaluation purposes. But that was declined.

With delays in the F-35 and the decision to retire the F-111s it was decided to buy F-18E/F Super Hornets as interim replacements.

There have been some odd procurement decisions. Like the decision to buy used Kaman Sea Sprites with updated electronics for our navy to use. This program turned out to be ridiculously expensive, and ended up being cancelled.

Politically it would seem that anything not US built hardly gets a chance. Which is a shame.

I understand that the RAAF have done modifications/upgrades to their F/A-18As to make them fit our needs more closely. This may be difficult to do with the F-35.

 

[buffnut453]

Should've bought Typhoons instead, then.

 

[Glider]

It has shades of the purchase of the F111. They operated some F4s before the F111 was delivered and a lot of people believed that the F4 would have been both cheaper and more effective

 

[Messy1]

One could be cynical and say "because they are old, and there are defence dollars in the offing for a replacement"....

That very thing has occurred to me Parsifal. Typical waste in government.

 

[vanir]

sorry evan, I try to keep an eye on being on forums too much without socialising irl to compensate, I accept one of my references for those comments was American media, not exactly a primary source or a necessarily objective one. But I did hear a rendition from some authoritive, celebrated US designers responsible for aircraft in current service and with great service records I might add. Can't remember his name, but seriously I lack enough knowledge to be convincing myself, but I sure well learned how to recognise it the hard way by my age and every point this guy made was unquestionably observation in nature, it was entirely informative, he answered questions with detailed user friendly physics and was just really comfortable talking about this stuff, he knew his stuff, no way he's off on it. (there's a youtube of the interview, finnish documentary I think, when I find it again I'll post it).

But it is true, if history is anything to go by US made warplanes cut no corners in quality, workmanship, effective performance and design achievements. There is no question as to the record of US armaments industry.

So I don't know where I stand, I can only parrot what I take in and try to make sense of things as best I can. I concede and defer to any qualified experts.

I understand that the RAAF have done modifications/upgrades to their F/A-18As to make them fit our needs more closely. This may be difficult to do with the F-35.

The price on the F/A-18C/D update (ie. equivalency conversions) got blown out so we made our own locally, the only part it lacked initially was Amraam capability (we were mostly interested in antishipping armaments) but I think we got amraam capability on some or all of them eventually, probably that part is patented US or something.

 

[wuzak]

AMRAAM is medium range air to air missile.

 

[wuzak]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc

 

[Matt308]

Have to say, Joe, I was a little surprised when they announced the 'retirement' of the F-117A. I thought an asset like that would have been highly prized, especially since the F-35 isn't in service yet.

It is 70's technology. 40yrs old. Surface treatments, engine baffles, encoded digital comm, sensor fusion and IRST avionics offer a likely similar or better capability.

 

[Matt308]

Should've bought Typhoons instead, then.

But then you really don't get any significant air-gnd capability until Block III. The Typhoon was not developed to be an all-purpose attack-fighter. It is a fighter-intercepter, first and foremost. Doesn't mean it will adequately fill the roll (Block III brings most of those capabilities). Same with Rafael, but Rafael is a bit ahead in the integration timeline. And Rafael sacraficed performance for those attack capabilities.

 

[wuzak]

And Rafael sacraficed performance for those attack capabilities.

Is that not the case for the F-35 too?

 

[buffnut453]

Presumably so did the F/A-18. And the F-111 never had an air-to-air capability. I guess I'm struggling to understand the point you're making. Are you suggesting the RAAF keeps the F-111 as a deep strike capability because it was specifically designed for that role and also keep the F/A-18 for air defence even though it was designed as a multi-role platform? Sounds like double standards to me.

 

[Matt308]

Is that not the case for the F-35 too?

I'm having a hard time following the logic of your argument and am quickly coming to the realization that for you the argument is more important than the conclusion.

 

[davparlr]

And while I am a fan of the F-111, it's combat record was far from impressive. It had impressive stats and range and payload were good on paper. But long range strikes, even when things are working right, are difficult to accomplish. After a long flight, then flying through air defenses, fatigue and adrenaline can effect concentration. Lets look at the Libya raid in 1986 done by 18 F-111Fs out of Lakenheath.

Target 1: Bab al-Azizia barracks. 9 F-111Fs, each armed with 4 GBU-10 2,000 lb Laser guided bombs.
Score: 3 bombed, 1 miss, 4 aborts, 1 lost
13 hits out of 36 weapons
Effectiveness 36%
Target 2: Murat Sidi Bilal camp. 3 F-111Fs, each armed with 4 GBU-10 2,000 lb Laser guided bombs.
Score: 3 hits
12 hits out of 12 weapons
Effectiveness: 100%
Target 3: Tripoli airfield. 6 F-111Fs, each armed with 12 Mk 82 500 lb bombs.
Score: 5 bombed 1 abort.
70 hits out of 84 weapons
Effectiveness: 83%

While it was an overall success, the effectiveness of the F-111 against a difficult target after a long flight is not a resounding success.

I think that in 1986 this was revolutionary performance. A long range mission and excellent results for the time. Remember, they were using basically late 1960s technology (barely out of the iron bomb world). In the early 80s, when we were designing the B-2 cockpit we had a FB-111 pilot and WSO to advise us. We had a two man cockpit unlike the four man B-1. At that time the FB-111 was the only aircraft assigned to the downtown Moscow run.

 

[wuzak]

I'm having a hard time following the logic of your argument and am quickly coming to the realization that for you the argument is more important than the conclusion.

Sorry.

You said that the Rafael sacrificed performance to gain attack capabilities. Is that not the same for the F-35 that has to sacrifice performance in one area to satisfy the requirements in another?

In other words, The F-35's air to air capability is compromised by its attack requirements, and vice versa.

 

[Matt308]

Sorry.

You said that the Rafael sacrificed performance to gain attack capabilities. Is that not the same for the F-35 that has to sacrifice performance in one area to satisfy the requirements in another?

In other words, The F-35's air to air capability is compromised by its attack requirements, and vice versa.

Absolutely. The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. Yet I was under the impression you were arguing that Australia with a multi-role need would be best served via Typhoon. Rafael's high level requirements were steeped in multi-role. Typhoon Mk1 were not. Certainly performance was sacrificed for F-35 and Rafael, but they have true multi-role out of the box. Typhoon is playing catch-up and with a stated urgency.

However, don't get me wrong. The F-16A program was unfettered with long-term requirements to establish a short term airframe success. I view the Typhoon in a similar positive light. There are always tradeoffs. F-35 is suffering from an all to typical US procurement where the DoD provides initial specifications and as the program matures heaps new upon old. While this is rife with potential for failure and cost overruns, one must balance these complex system procurement timelines with others that must identify new requirements and budgetary line items over a 40 year procurement life cycle.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. I suspect that once F-35 gets out of LRIP, it will be the platform to have. It's not just about the airframe anymore.