I'm kind of dubious about the upcoming (2010) retirement of the last of the RAAF's F-111s. Yes, they're old, but they're versatile and proven in combat, which is more than I can say for the JSFs we're buying. I can understand replacing aircraft when something which is definitely better comes along, but for every F-35 we could afford numerous examples of other aircraft which work just as well but may not be quite so stealthy. Defence's purchasing decisions of late haven't made sense to me at the best of times, but the fact they're banking everything on their new planes being just right is a bit worrying - it reminds me of when the US figured they'd replace the A-10, then realised that absolutely nothing would ever take its place and rushed them back into service. I think it might be a better idea to keep the F-111s in service a bit longer, at the very least until we've made sure that the replacements are suitable not just for our air force, but also for our country itself. Curious how the RAAFies feel on this one, actually.
On a fairly unrelated note, I find it immensely amusing reading through comments on videos of the Su-35 on Youtube. It's like the die-hard nationalistic American users think that the US pioneered thrust-vectoring in fighters or something, when in reality the Russians have had it for quite some time and the US is only just bringing fighters into active service which can pull the Cobra - something the Russians have been doing for decades. Ironically the only aspect of aviation I'd say the US has any advantage at all in is stealth, which the Russians don't seem overly concerned with. In most other regards, they're still playing catch-up. Plus Russian jets have fucking awesome lines, they genuinely look aggressive. Like flying sharks or something, I guess.
I mean, fuck, look at this thing:
October 3rd, 2009, 03:38 AM
n00b1n8R
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
/me has recently taken an interest in jet fighters, how they work, why they have what they do and their history, please suggest sites to read
October 3rd, 2009, 06:50 AM
rossmum
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I wouldn't know, outside of flight sim communities anyway. There are tons floating around the internet.
October 3rd, 2009, 08:08 AM
mR_r0b0to
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
flanker is best~
October 3rd, 2009, 09:20 AM
musicman888
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I must agree with your starting post in this thread rossum. The F-111 is a proven combat jet aircraft and should be kept in service for the RAAF until they see if they even like the F35.
Also yes, the russian Sukoi jet fighters are intimidating and amazing in the sense of what a jet can do. Su-35 Terminators are met, in versatility and such, only by our F22s and yet the US is planning to cut back or decommission the F22s.
The difference with replacing the F-111 and the A-10 is that the A-10 was a specialty fighter; it's sole job is close air support and specifically, tank-busting; we have no other plane that is well-suited for this job and none were in the pipeline. Now, the F-111 is a general purpose fighter and, as you said yourself, there are a number of cheaper, well-proven designs out there that could replace it. The F-35 is just the newest in general purpose fighters, so why not buy new so you can not have to worry about it for another 20-30 years...if you were to buy one of those cheaper and proven plane, you're out another several billion only a decade later.
As for US playing catch-up, I think you have your priorities wrong. What is the Cobra manoeuvre (and it's derivatives) honestly good for? You pull that shit and the guy behind you is going to tear your ass to pieces with his cannon before he goes into a dive to avoid what's coming or, more likely, shove a missile up your rear. Yeah, you might get your enemy to overshoot, but with today's air-to-air tactics, that is a highly improbably outcome. Stealth has more uses than Thrust Vectoring does at the moment because you can't hit a target that you can't lock onto unless you do it manually, and that's hard at modern speeds (as if it wasn't hard at WWII speeds).
[/counter anti-US rhetoric]
Related to the F-35:
Now there are posters all over DC calling for voters to vote against spending money on an alternate, more powerful engine for the F-35. We're already cutting down/mothballing our F-22s, so I have to say "WAT!?" The hell are these hippies gonna do when they seem 'dem Chinese flying over their homes?
October 4th, 2009, 02:15 AM
NuggetWarmer
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I had really hoped to become a pilot, as my grandfather used to fly small planes, but unfortunately my vision is bad. :(
October 4th, 2009, 02:41 AM
rossmum
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
The difference with replacing the F-111 and the A-10 is that the A-10 was a specialty fighter; it's sole job is close air support and specifically, tank-busting; we have no other plane that is well-suited for this job and none were in the pipeline. Now, the F-111 is a general purpose fighter and, as you said yourself, there are a number of cheaper, well-proven designs out there that could replace it. The F-35 is just the newest in general purpose fighters, so why not buy new so you can not have to worry about it for another 20-30 years...if you were to buy one of those cheaper and proven plane, you're out another several billion only a decade later.
Yeah, but at least you know you're buying something that will work, and you know exactly how it'll react to your environment. At the very least I think they should hold some F-111s over until they're sure the F-35 is the best replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
As for US playing catch-up, I think you have your priorities wrong. What is the Cobra manoeuvre (and it's derivatives) honestly good for? You pull that shit and the guy behind you is going to tear your ass to pieces with his cannon before he goes into a dive to avoid what's coming or, more likely, shove a missile up your rear. Yeah, you might get your enemy to overshoot, but with today's air-to-air tactics, that is a highly improbably outcome. Stealth has more uses than Thrust Vectoring does at the moment because you can't hit a target that you can't lock onto unless you do it manually, and that's hard at modern speeds (as if it wasn't hard at WWII speeds).
Are you serious? Show me an air-to-air missile which can keep up with a Cobra. They can't; they'd overshoot completely, and so would the enemy fighter which fired it, putting the Russian fighter on its tail. It's not a regular turn, dude. Due to the high AoA the initial stages of the Cobra would look like the aircraft is about to begin a steep climb, which would throw off a pursuing pilot on a guns pass as they will try and lead for it climbing. With the closing speed you get in modern fighters, by the time he realised otherwise it would be too late.
Don't be fooled into thinking that because of missiles, manoeuvrability is irrelevant - if anything, it's more important than ever. Thrust vectoring and the ability to turn almost literally on a dime are tremendous advantages in aerial combat, which is why the US now uses it on their aircraft, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
[/counter anti-US rhetoric]
Come off it. If anything, my post was a counter to all the anti-Russian, excessively arrogant and nationalistic comments the more ignorant Americans plaster Russian aircraft videos with on Youtube. Thankfully, not all of them are so full of themselves that they assume the US is always the best. Look up the Avro Canada Arrow, bro. Actually, look up the English Electric Lightning while you're at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Related to the F-35:
Now there are posters all over DC calling for voters to vote against spending money on an alternate, more powerful engine for the F-35. We're already cutting down/mothballing our F-22s, so I have to say "WAT!?" The hell are these hippies gonna do when they seem 'dem Chinese flying over their homes?
If anything, they should cut the F35 and feed that money back into the F-22.
October 4th, 2009, 03:38 AM
Cortexian
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I like the potential that the F-35 has to offer NATO countries... Plus, Canada is getting some iirc.
e/ I stand corrected; the RAAF is replacing the F-111 with the F/A-18F. No idea what they're going to do with the F-35s. My point stands though - replacing a dedicated fighter-bomber capable of Mach 2.5 with an overgrown fighter capable of Mach 1.8 strikes me as a really odd decision. We already use the C variant anyway.
e/ Snaf, this is for your benefit especially -
Quote:
Originally Posted by The RAAF's website
Highly controversial during its development, the F-111 is even better today than when it was introduced to our Air Force in June 1973. With numerous airframe, engine, weapons and avionics upgrades, the F-111 remains the fastest and longest ranging combat aircraft in the Asia-Pacific.
F-111 range - ferry in excess of 5,500km
F/A-18F range - ferry 2,700km; interdiction 1,000km; combat 740km
The F-111 also has TFR, which I doubt the Hornet would (being a fighter first and foremost). Sounds like the idea is to replace the F-111 with the Super Hornet, then replace that with the F-35; the Super Hornets seem to be the RAAF's insurance policy in case the F-35s don't show on time. The F-35 is a decent weapons platform and stealthy, no doubts there; it's also cheaper than the Raptor. However with a range of 1,100km and limited payload, I still would not call that a replacement for the F-111. I'd call it a replacement for the F/A-18 as a fighter.
