Too much faith in stealth technology?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I was arguing that the F-35 is not the solution to Australia's needs, and certainly is not suitable for all the roles required by Australia. And surely air superiority is one of the most important roles for our aircraft.

I think we need a mixture of aircraft to fulfill our needs. Not just a single aircraft to do the whole job.

The US won't sell us F-22s, so why wouldn't Australia look at what else is available for the different roles required.

I would suggest that the Su-35 is probably the best airframe available (to Australia) at the moment for air superiority and can be available for roughly the same cost as the F-18E/Fs we bought. And surely they would have some strike capability.

At worst the Su-35 would give us equivalent capabilities in air to air with the air forces in our region, though we could probably afford more of them than they could.

Then if we reall still wanted the F-35 we could concentrate it in the strike role.
 
There isn't really any ideal airframe for what you are proposing for Australia's needs, wuzak. Buying Russian equipment, no matter how attractive the airframe, is not a viable option because, as Matt pointed out, the Russians are notoriously bad at spares supply. That is without mentioning the incompatibility of avionic systems, weaponry etc. I guess you also have to examine what the RAAF is likely to go into combat against once it has its F-35s.
 
The Typhoon has come a long way in the GA role over recent months. I tend to view the Typhoon as Fighter first and GA second and the F35 as a GA first and Fighter second. Both are going to be capable of doing a decent job of the secondary role.

A combination similar to the RAF is I agree the ideal solution, but the additional costs over a small fleet are probably out of reach.

The Su35 would not be the correct solution, spares, support, lack of political stability and reliability issues would be stacked against it.
 

As I undestand it, India uses a mixture of western and Russian equipment. And I understand that they use western weaponry on their Russian aircraft.

Also, back in the Cold War weren't Soviet jets designed so that they would be compatible with US ground equipment?
 
India has a real problem with their mish-mash of equipment, systems and airplanes.

And Cold War Soviet jets compatible with US ground equipment? That's news to me. What are you talking about?
 
Matt308 said:
India has a real problem with their mish-mash of equipment, systems and airplanes.

And Cold War Soviet jets compatible with US ground equipment? That's news to me. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I nelieve the soviet aircraft were capable of using NATO Start Carts, Oxygen stuff fueling equipment and dumb bombs without mods
 

India and Pakistan both blended Russian and Western systems into their aircraft on several occasions. As far as the starting units. I believe you're looking at the 28V electrical power cord with a 3 prong socket, a common off the shelf item depending what specific aircraft we're talking about. I don't believe breathing O2 and N2 (used for the brakes) adapters were common with NATO equipment from the Soviet/ East Bloc equipment I've been around (L-29, 39, Iskra, MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21)
Glider said:
In view of this topic the latest news is interesting

BBC News - Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA
Click to expand...

That's been all over the news here. For the most part I believe its much to do about nothing. If Iran really shot down this drone they would be filming it and showing it off on their media. Even if it was brought down by what ever means, I"ll bet dollars to donuts that the more sophicated items on board fried themselves the minute the drone pilot lost control of the aircraft (I believe there are some computerized systems that will "crash" in the event of the drone becoming uncontrollable). My take on it, like all the other advanced drones that came before it, it is a drone and it was made to be expendable and I'm sure the CIA knew the risks of one being brought down over hostile territory.
 
Well the Iranians just posted the first pics of the drone. Looks like its in tact. Personally I think they got a big RC jet with a bunch of fried computers
 
I was just going from memory what I'd been told from the lower castes so your probably correct and should be filed under mysteries dispelled
 

From what I have seen on the TV there is little doubt that the Iranians have it intact but drone or not, it was obviously spotted and its that impact on the stealth that I had in mind adding it to the thread.
 
Glider said:
From what I have seen on the TV there is little doubt that the Iranians have it intact but drone or not, it was obviously spotted and its that impact on the stealth that I had in mind adding it to the thread.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll have to see how they really acquired it. I have doubts they shot it down or even took control of it.
 
pbfoot said:
I nelieve the soviet aircraft were capable of using NATO Start Carts, Oxygen stuff fueling equipment and dumb bombs without mods
Click to expand...

Yep, they did this so that when the Warpac nations invaded Western Europe it would be simple for their aircraft to plug in and go at Western airfields. I spoke to a Polish guy who has former South Vietnam Cessna A-37 Dragonfly and F-5 in his museum collection, he said the North Vietnamese sent Western equipment to sympathetic governments for assimilation of ideas and equipment.

Wuzac, you're right about India, but there are lots of issues surrounding incompatibility, as Matt308 stated. I suspect if they can't get the Seasprites' avionics to work, I'm sure as certain they'd find it hard to get Russian avionic equipment to interface with existing Western gear. Do you really think the Aussie govt would buy Russian equipment, though?
 

The Seasprite's avionics weren't developed in Australia.

No, I don't think that we'll ever buy Russian equipment. In fact, I think that we may never buy anything other than American equipment. The decisions are totally political.
 
It's only single point of failure is its single engine. Other systems are likely double or triple redundant. I would bet a paycheck that the engine failed and it glided in. The RQ-170 has never been touted as leading edge. It has a cranked kite shape and hidden engine inlet. Its payload is probably more expensive than the airframe/avionics themselves. China has announced similar stealth UCAVs in the past with much more impressive stealth airframe qualities. But sensor fusion (in software) has always been the Achilles heel.

I suspect that the drone was fitted with expendable IR/visual light cameras and radioactive particle sensors/brooms. Likely nothing too leading edge, but reliant upon its inherent and publically known stealth qualities (small airframe, planform, hidden inlet, etc) to avoid detection. Hell just look at the engine exhaust outlet. Nothing fancy there. AvWeek has been reporting this UAS overflying Iran for 2+ years and I would bet dollars to donuts that any technology lost is 30+ years old in novelty.
 

I suppose this is also true of the US services, since the F-22 program has ben cancelled and the F-3 will replace the A-10 and F-117 in the long term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
So Much For Helicopters
Replies
2
Views
707
MIflyer
M
Next generation Engines For Stealth Fighters.
Replies
0
Views
564
syscom3
F
USS Stout loading ordnance in France
Replies
0
Views
318
Frog
F
A-12 Avenger II: The Secret Stealth Attack Aircraft That Got Cancelled [DOCUMENTARY]
Replies
4
Views
1K
GrauGeist
Vietnam In A Nutshell....
Replies
0
Views
534
Lucky13
Menu
Log in
Register