We take a look at Ubisoft's next iteration in the Far Cry universe to see just what is on offer
Badger Badger Badger - Far Cry 4 Reviewed
We chat with Blizzard RTS veteran Allen Dilling on the past, present and future of StarCraft!
StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void Developer Interview
The first expansion for Company of Heroes 2 has landed. How does one attack Adrennes Assault? Read our review to find out!
Company of Heroes 2: Adrennes Assault Review
our next fighter, F-35, further downgrades performance
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3747 posts
so reading my weeking dose of flight international there is a lovely full page bit of how bad the F-35 is becoming (okay, it is more about how the permformance targets have been lowered)

The F-35 is only capable of a turn performance of 4.6g down from 5g, which was downgraded from the plan of a 6g plane(which is less than an F-4, Mirage IIIE,or a Mig-17)

lIt is also slower in acceleration tests from mach 0.8 to 1.2 than planned (it is now 43 secs, which worse than an F-4, Mirage IIIE or Mig-17

It also has a much lower top speed than say Mirage IIIE, a plane that we retired from the RAAF in 1988, and it is slower again than our current main aircraft the F/A-18

n fact, compared to our first supersonic fighter (the Mirage), the F-35 has less range, it is slower, it is less agile at most heights, all of which mean it has less survivability (in fact due to the low weapons volume it can take, the chances of it surviving a visual fight with three 4th gen fighters is pretty poor, oh and stealth will not save it, currently JORN (our over the horision radar system) can spot one of these pretty easy, sure it has a little trouble tracking it, but more than enough to narrow down an area and get fighter in visual range, pretty sure other countries will be able to do the same) but more to the point it would mean the the tankers (needed to support the F-35) would also be exposed or require more assets to protect it

so, in light that we are clearly not getting the aircraft that we have paid for/invested in, and more and more it is appearing like a lame duck in any sort of air space that isn't already controlled (by allies) is it time to pull the plug? (as a defence fighter it isn't ideal, and any of our current/past fast jet would do a better job)

Other countries are looking a pulling out of the program, and should that happen the cost to procure the planes will go further and further up, and it would cost more to pull out the later we leave it.
05:05pm 14/02/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
05:05pm 14/02/13 Permalink
SheerObesity
Melbourne, Victoria
30 posts
The whole thing is a disaster, an expensive disaster.

Seems like the whole program had massive rorting in it. Australia shouldn't buy any of these.
05:18pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3748 posts
I wouldn't call it rorting, I would call it misguided faith in an ideal

once apon a time, lots of effort was put into making planes fly high, but as artillery got good at hitting those early planes, they found going in a little lower was better (not too low, as the average trench guy would have a few shots then)

then with WW2, everyone thought that higher was better, which then became higher and faster

then with jets two schools came out, faster and/or higher, untill some guy called gary got hit with a sam, then it was the lower the better

infact, ground hugging jets is still seen as the best way to get past a defender that controls an airspace, (in the 70's a big britsh bomber called the vulcan (sexist bomber ever btw) managed to get four bombers past the DEW line, and one landed in new york) infact going to ground is still the best way to get unseen, and into a controlled airspace

the only problems with hugging the ground at tall trees, fuel burn, and airframe stress,

the best fighting platforms are those that are flexible and leave more options on the table, as far as I can see the F35 has one trick, stealth, if it were to be seen with the mk 1 eye ball, there isn't much chance of it been able to dictate the fight
05:35pm 14/02/13 Permalink
Mephz
Brisbane, Queensland
1311 posts
The F35 is not a dogfighting jet so don't expect that out of it.

What you want for a dogfighter is an F2, F22, F16 or Sukhoi variant (Flankers were designed specifically to wtfpwn the F15)

Check out at 2:05 and @ 8:40 - the roll rate on the F16 is incredible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1X8SE-FDjk

But in the end dogfighting is a thing of the past so maneuverability is not directly linked to survivability like it was back in the A6M's day.
05:48pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3749 posts
didn't say anything about dog fighting, hence why I compared turns, and accelration rate to a 1950's jet, and a 1960's yet,

for the reccord the F-4 wasn't a dogfighter either
05:50pm 14/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13484 posts
The F-35 is a multirole aircraft though so the evaluation criteria as a pure fighter (maneuverability, acceleration, top speed) seem a bit borked?

If we wanted a pure fighter why wouldn't we buy some F-22s or hang onto the Super Hornets until the new gen-6 stuff is in production?
05:52pm 14/02/13 Permalink
Mephz
Brisbane, Queensland
1312 posts
Turns don't mean much in beyond visual range combat and strikes.

Also the weaponry and systems on the F35 would destroy an F-4 before it could even see it systematically or visually.

Look at Red Flag.
This is multi-national event where military forces around the world come together and play 'war games' essentially.
Including fully simulated air combat/air ground/ground air combat using computers to dictate hits/misses (it's basically a massive version of skirmish/laser tag).

The 'dogfights' in red flag are pretty well decided within seconds of the engagement outside visual contact.
05:56pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3750 posts
hoggy, again, not comparing it to a pure fighter, but other multi role aircraft (bar the mig-17)

also, the superhornet is far from a pure fighter, it is flawed multirole replacement for the F-14

it would be far to expect that compared to a aircraft designed over 40years ago would be better in more than just radar cross section
05:58pm 14/02/13 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
849 posts
I thought the F-35 project was dreamed up to replace the the F-111 rather than the FA-18s.

I thought the Plan was replace the F-111 and upgrade the FA-18

Or am I wrong about that?
05:59pm 14/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13485 posts
hoggy, again, not comparing it to a pure fighter, but other multi role aircraft (bar the mig-17)

Your OP is all about fighter aircraft and performance metrics for them. The post title is 'our next fighter' lol.

As pete notes, the 35 is the intended successor to the F-111 and it should be very good at that job?

What actually s**** me about the F-35 is that the yanks have deliberately nerfed its stealth for 'foreigners' to make sure they have the best stealth capability in the world bar none, despite us being development partners. ANZUS much, c****?!
06:02pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3751 posts
pete, f-35 replaces all fighter/strike aircraft meaning that the hornets, and super hornets (which replaced the f-111)

mephz, you sort of right, however it isn't overly hard to get with visual range before the f-35 could spot them on radar, also, red flag, the f-35 didn't play, and there are unconfirmed reports that the f-22 didn't do to well (they haven't released the results due to the f-22 being restricted due to problems with-ins it flight envelope) there were some very happy germans that mearly state that agaisnt the f-22 they did.......well

with a good ground controller radar, even the high off-bore sight AIM-9x block 2 will not save it
also, the plane has a low pay load,
06:10pm 14/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36721 posts
UAVs are the next generation of air superiority anyway surely
06:10pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3752 posts
hoggy it replaces the f-111, which is still unmatched for high speed low height interdiction, or strike, the f-35 can not fill the role of an interdictor or med bomber (which is what an F-111 is/was) it has little effective pay load

it also replaces the hornets, as a strike/attack aircraft, (thus making it our next "fighter") for this role it is a little better in minor aspects, like range, but load outs it pales, and it is slower, and unable to match the turn rates of 50-60yo fighters

oh, and the "F" in F-35 stands for fighter
06:18pm 14/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13486 posts
UAVs are the next generation of air superiority anyway surely
During the first Gulf War, the Navy kill ratio was twelve-to-one. We shot down twelve of their jets for every one of ours. In Afghanistan, this ratio fell to three-to-one. Our pilots depended on UAVs. They lost their dogfighting skills.
06:18pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3753 posts
UAVs are the next generation of air superiority anyway surely


there is a big debate about that, in all honesty you'll likely find civil aircraft with no pilot before you'll see a viable fighter that is fully computer controled

there is a reason that UAV are only used in places that you complete air control of
06:20pm 14/02/13 Permalink
bargain
Sydney, New South Wales
1949 posts
But in the end dogfighting is a thing of the past so maneuverability is not directly linked to survivability like it was back in the A6M's day.
True that.

I can't say I'm up to date on the latest developments of the F35 specifically, but It's not like we were going to buy them to rely solely on their capability alone.

The 'force multipliers' that we're getting into diminish the need for a dogfighter. Especially in the 'defence/deterrent role that we mostly use our fighters for. The growlers and wedgetails gettin all up in this business.
06:22pm 14/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36722 posts
there is a big debate about that, in all honesty you'll likely find civil aircraft with no pilot before you'll see a viable fighter that is fully computer controled
They don't need to be fully computer controlled, though that is obviously the end-game
During the first Gulf War, the Navy kill ratio was twelve-to-one. We shot down twelve of their jets for every one of ours. In Afghanistan, this ratio fell to three-to-one. Our pilots depended on UAVs. They lost their dogfighting skills.
10/10
06:23pm 14/02/13 Permalink
glynd
Melbourne, Victoria
910 posts
During the first Gulf War, the Navy kill ratio was twelve-to-one. We shot down twelve of their jets for every one of ours. In Afghanistan, this ratio fell to three-to-one. Our pilots depended on UAVs. They lost their dogfighting skills.


Top Gun 3D - Coming to cinemas 2014?
06:24pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3754 posts
During the first Gulf War, the Navy kill ratio was twelve-to-one. We shot down twelve of their jets for every one of ours. In Afghanistan, this ratio fell to three-to-one. Our pilots depended on UAVs. They lost their dogfighting skills.



did you rip that from topgun and change the wars?

oddly, that was also covered in the mag, funding has meant that the aggressor force has been lagging behind
06:24pm 14/02/13 Permalink
Mephz
Brisbane, Queensland
1313 posts
mephz, you sort of right, however it isn't overly hard to get with visual range before the f-35 could spot them on radar
For that to occur the enemy would be flying low to begin with.
Assuming they knew of the presence of the F35 to begin with which is unlikely as the F35 would not be used for patrol like the F16s, F14s etc.

Second of all, if the F35 is actually at height and someone approaches from below well. Law of conservation of energy stipulates (and has done since dawn of time but for principles of dogfighting, WW1) that the aggressor or defender with height has the advantage.
Height is like potential energy already stored ready to be converted to kinetic energy.
It would be very, very easy for the higher aircraft to dive and accelerate out of range.

There are numerous tactics which utilise those very real physical principles, fighters since WW2 have been fighting against vastly superior (maneuverability) wise enemies.
This is how so many tactics were contemplated to begin with!
Formations were conceived because of the A6M which had absolutely balls-to-the-wall superiority over all US and UK fighters and yet even before the Hurricane which had the closest turning capacity to match the A6M in a horizontal fight tactics were employed to minimise disadvantages and improve advantages.
The Mustang was just a beast with its .50's and cannons and speed, it wasn't exactly a demonic maneuverability machine. But it was still considered king of the skies.

There is so much more at play (especially since the development of modern weaponry) over pure flight characteristics unless the jets are put against each other, in a nose to nose simulation and let it play out from there who would be a winner? Anyone's guess, the pilot and his decisions will also play a large role.

{edit} silly me said potential to potential energy.
06:33pm 14/02/13 Permalink
Mephz
Brisbane, Queensland
1314 posts
Oh also what's the thrust ratio on the F35 compared to other fighters, that's another big important factor as is how much airpseed it bleeds off to perform any maneuver which is a part of form drag and thrust / lift ratio.

Just way too many things to consider to simply say "it doesn't accelerate as fast and doesn't turn horizontally as fast therefore it sucks ass"
06:38pm 14/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36723 posts
Just way too many things to consider to simply say "it doesn't accelerate as fast and doesn't turn horizontally as fast therefore it sucks ass"
It sucks ass because it's a relic of a foregone era that didn't include QUADCOPTER SWARMS
06:43pm 14/02/13 Permalink
skythra
Brisbane, Queensland
6376 posts
I find the UAV's at this point more the same role as a banshee in starcraft, it's great at finding and hitting a target on the ground. Really they'd have to train pilots differently for UAV's aimed to assassinate other air vehicles with different UAV's designed for it, the viking equivalent (without the useless transform ability that is).

I always wonder about hitting a moving target on a laggy interface.. although i guess you could pre-program your UAV to aim and shoot for you anyway so they're just a vehicle doing laps finding targets and destroying them refueling and heading off again in a pattern with new targets that are identified from other sources..

i'm really not contributing to this thread but normal planes aren't really my thing..
06:59pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3755 posts
mephz, the F-35 can't accelerate away, that is part of the problem, with a top speed of mach 1.6, it is far from a rocket ship, and would be easy to pick off with any number of 3rd or 4th gen aircraft,

part of the mustangs greatness was it turn of speed, (lacking in the f-35) it's range (lacking) and it was due to it's higher speed, and turn of speed which meant it could engage or disengage a fight, (something the f-35 can't)

at height our current radar systems can detect it, and it is able (in theory) to be detected BVR by a and F-14 (iran still has a few flying) so, while stealth would help it against, say indonesias fighters, they (ground control radar) would be able to direct the intercept, and the SU-27's would be able to chase it down from a low level intercept. it also lacks the range to get in close for a strike role, (and lets face it, a tanker isn't stealthy and that would rasie alarm bells)

as for "There is so much more at play", you're right, the ability to control the fight is the main reason that all the great fighter are great fighters, to be able to disengage an unfavorable fight, and engage with an advandage (this applies at any range!)
this plane in the role we would use it (if we needed it) would be like the ME-109 over britain, great for only a few minutes, and early in the fight, but it would have to depart pretty quick (and there is lays an issue, because it simply can't dis-engage, it takes nearly a minute to move thru transonic speed, and at full afterburner, that is one big IR sig)

really in short, once in visual range, it has a very limited store of weapons that it can use to try kill an enemy. and it is pretty much completed unable to outrun (thus disengage) most fighters built in the last 60 years, the only limiting factor (that would work in the f-35 favor) would be lower tech weapons, but if you were fighting in a 60yo mig, chances are you'd just try for guns and die, or win either way, one can buy an awful lot of older jets much cheaper than 1 f-35
07:00pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3756 posts
Oh also what's the thrust ratio on the F35 compared to other fighters, that's another big important factor as is how much airpseed it bleeds off to perform any maneuver which is a part of form drag and thrust / lift ratio. Just way too many things to consider to simply say "it doesn't accelerate as fast and doesn't turn horizontally as fast therefore it sucks ass"



thrust to weight is about the same as an early F-16, however the acceleration in level flight is much much slower (thus meaning a higher fuel burn), the F-16 is also quite a bit faster

the rate of climb is unpublished, but from accounts in the press, and by janes, it isn't overly great,

the one thing that isn't bad is it has an AoA the same as the F/A-18

for 1/3 of the cost (not encluding program costs that we have already paid to the F-35) we could have had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
avavilable now
better in every measure bar RCS
flexible
truely multirole
oh and the big one PROVEN!!
it also has a flexible airframe that can do many roles, and even carrier roles!
and cheaper to maintain (and run)
oh, and we (RAAF) have had french planes before
07:10pm 14/02/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
17806 posts
still fapping over f-111's i see
07:34pm 14/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3757 posts
pave, i'll be fapping over a vulcan when i'm in the UK
07:39pm 14/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36725 posts
Really they'd have to train pilots differently for UAV's aimed to assassinate other air vehicles with different UAV's designed for it, the viking equivalent (without the useless transform ability that is).
They just don't need pilots at all though for any of the fiddly reaction time dependent stuff. They can make UAVs now with autonomous controls to handle the firefights and just use humans for basic go/no go handling. It's ultimately going to come down to who writes the best code and who makes hardware that can react quickly enough.
07:47pm 14/02/13 Permalink
skythra
Brisbane, Queensland
6378 posts
They just don't need pilots at all though for any of the fiddly reaction time dependent stuff. They can make UAVs now with autonomous controls to handle the firefights and just use humans for basic go/no go handling. It's ultimately going to come down to who writes the best code and who makes hardware that can react quickly enough.

I think we agree! Technology is far more interesting, and starts to abstract a battlefield away from human components meaning technically strategy and technology are the forefront of a war except, unlike the past, without the loss of life on both sides! If only people could agree that arbitrary ground away from humans is a good battle field.. which, again starcraft teaches us, it just isn't. Fighting in the middle of the map gains nothing, retreat to your base for faster/better reinforcements, versus fighting at the enemies for collateral damage. Only skirmishes happen in the midfield.
08:22pm 14/02/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9895 posts
Why buy Planes that are only ever going to be used for illegal Police actions against Countries that dont agree with America and Israel ?

Drones and Missile technology is what we should have.
Helicopter Gunships.
Lots of stuff that America wont be able to bum off us.

We should spend more money on helping Indonesia control fundy Islam.
Every School we build, every Muslim we Educate is a Muslim that wont fall victim to militant Islam.

Islamic revolution can happen quite quickly and we prolly wont see it coming.
We should be prepared for local problems and thats the likely problem.


09:14pm 14/02/13 Permalink
crazymorton
Brisbane, Queensland
3901 posts
09:39pm 14/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1328 posts
The simple answer is that the RAAF were never given the opportunity to do a competitive test with other aircraft like the Eurofighter. They were told by John Howard that the F-35 would be the replacement for the F-18. Much like the replacement of the AS1 Leopard tank...we get M1A1 Abrams, no testing just thats it the Leopard 2A6 and Challenger II being much better tanks.

The RAAF actually wanted the F-22 Raptor but, at the same time, the US decided they would not sell them overseas. The F-35 was never thought of as a viable alternative to the F-18. The new Super Hornets are not as capable as the F111 was.

This was the price we paid so that John Howard could get a free trade agreement with the USA despite the agreement not being as "free trade" as we wanted it. US Beef and Sugar interests being a major block.


IMO dump the F-35 and go into Australian based and manufactured tech. Support our economy rather than someone elses.
10:19pm 14/02/13 Permalink
foolix
Brisbane, Queensland
152 posts
F22(if they would have sold it to us) + super hornet would have surely satisfied our needs and saved us billions in the process. It's ridiculous for the yanks not to sell it to us and in the next breath say that they have no greater ally than AU.

F35 will be another seasprite
12:53am 15/02/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
1864 posts
Yeah I thought the F-22 was the new top dawg? With the Eurofighter a close second.

When has the US said that they have no greater ally then Aus?
01:18am 15/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3758 posts
F-22 is like the F-14,
great airframe, but very costly to maintain, also, you cant leave it outside, and it is still pretty restricted in speed and height due to some faults, and they are not making any more, so the F-22 is simply not an option

dassault beats eurofighter in all aspects, and has come out ontop in many side by side test run by many countrys' , it also has a better combat readness than the eurofighter. and greater loadout options

bang for buck, the saab gripen is also a good option (half the cost of the eurofighter), can use a highway for landing, and is very cheap to maintain and easy to work on


the big bonus with the dassault is we can build most of it here, while it is doubtful we'd be able to do the same with the eurofighter
03:09am 15/02/13 Permalink
taggs
6079 posts
IMO dump the F-35 and go into Australian based and manufactured tech. Support our economy rather than someone elses.


And end up with another expensive, essentially useless weapons platform like the Collins class submarine?

The conflation of defence policy with economic policy is a pretty bad idea, imo.
08:04am 15/02/13 Permalink
sharkuul
Brisbane, Queensland
574 posts
The problem with VTOL aircraft has always been outright speed. Look at the harrier, great close support platform but useless in air to air. Can't go supersonic yet was a British navy and American Marine mainstay for years. The f-35 is all about flexibility. It can do everything but is the master of nothing.

Anyone watched the doco on the JSF project when it was Boeing vs Lockheed Martin? Good viewing if your interested as to why they went with Lockheed, the Boeing had less moving parts and a more rigid airframe and was faster.

+1 for another Collins/sea sprite debacle
08:37am 15/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13488 posts
And end up with another expensive, essentially useless weapons platform like the Collins class submarine?The conflation of defence policy with economic policy is a pretty bad idea, imo.

Certainly if we don't have existing local expertise. Who is the Australian aerospace firm that's qualified to build 5th gen+ multirole / fighter aircraft?
10:14am 15/02/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
35161 posts
11:45am 15/02/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
5695 posts
We could buy the Iranian plane, but the cost of Adobe Photoshop would make it more economical to just buy the real deal.
01:11pm 15/02/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13339 posts
What the fibreglass sham with 8-track player?
01:11pm 15/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1329 posts
Certainly if we don't have existing local expertise. Who is the Australian aerospace firm that's qualified to build 5th gen+ multirole / fighter aircraft?


They would be Boeing Australia as they are the former ASTA and the former GAF. Who now build the Super Hornet.....
04:31pm 15/02/13 Permalink
ara
Sydney, New South Wales
3588 posts
They would be Boeing Australia as they are the former ASTA and the former GAF. Who now build the Super Hornet.....


Do you think we could make one that would hold its own with the current gen American, Chinese and Russian ones? because i am not sure this is something we want to gamble on. When push comes to shove, these things either need to work or they are just a massive waste of time and money (collins class sub)
04:50pm 15/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3761 posts
collins class (when working admittly) more than holds it own, and it a great sub (again when working)

you need to remember that was a field that we hadn't played in before, but we still made a world class sub (when working) that was more than able to track, and "kill" any US sub during the many wat games it has been in (when they were able to play, and they were working)
04:55pm 15/02/13 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10766 posts
very interesting thread, I wish I had something useful to add, but I won't pretend I know about fighter jets like other people are
04:56pm 15/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36728 posts
They would be Boeing Australia as they are the former ASTA and the former GAF. Who now build the Super Hornet.....
Huh? Boeing is a US company. Somehow I don't think Boeing Australia are going to design us an air superiority fighter that can shoot down US aircraft.

We are doing our own world leading research in the next generation of aerospace - UQ have a Centre for Hypersonics. I met one of the researchers out there recently and they are doing such awesome stuff.

Trying to build our own human-piloted jet aircraft would be a colossal waste of money; even an apparently crappy F-35 would probably be better than what 95% of the rest of the world can throw at us. Let's build some hypersonic intelligent robot things that you control with an iPhone. What could possibly go wrong?
05:24pm 15/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3764 posts
the iphone part seems to be the weak link
05:26pm 15/02/13 Permalink
crazymorton
Brisbane, Queensland
3906 posts
Let's build some hypersonic intelligent robot things that you control with an iPhone. What could possibly go wrong?


A fighter jet that "just works", awesome!

the iphone part seems to be the weak link

oh, how about Win 8, control all your attacks with tiles, even more awesome! except if you can't find the "abort bombing run" tile in time

in all seriousness though, I'm astounded by the level of fighter jet knowledge itt. makes for good reading, I'm enjoying it.
05:45pm 15/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36729 posts
The iPhone thing is only partially facetious as well - there was this cool story the other day about how soldiers in the UK are getting small portable drones to help them out with some "handheld unit". I'm sure they're probably rugged militarised versions of iPhones, but we're already trending towards robots having more and more to do with the combat stuff.
05:56pm 15/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3765 posts
oh, how about Win 8, control all your attacks with tiles, even more awesome! except if you can't find the "abort bombing run" tile in time


it would be somewhat better than an iphone that you'd have to turn on every 5 mins just to check if you've got a target, or have been shot down

(really, i've been using an iphone 5 for over a week now and I really can't fathom why it lack a simple notifcation LED, now that might be that i'd had blackberry's for years, or my current personal phone is the xperia and they have it, but for a phone that is frankly pitched as a tool for work and play, it is a massive oversight!.)


in all seriousness though, I'm astounded by the level of fighter jet knowledge itt. makes for good reading, I'm enjoying it.


i read alot at work, and it is something that i've had a big interest in for a long time, there are some really good mags, (flight internation for one) that have really well researched and thought out writters makes me wish more jorno's wrote like it
06:24pm 15/02/13 Permalink
crazymorton
Brisbane, Queensland
3907 posts
well mate I'm enjoying your knowledge

so here's my help for you
(really, i've been using an iphone 5 for over a week now and I really can't fathom why it lack a simple notifcation LED, now that might be that i'd had blackberry's for years, or my current personal phone is the xperia and they have it, but for a phone that is frankly pitched as a tool for work and play, it is a massive oversight!.)


I too went from BB to iPhone for work, however i turned the LED off on my BB anyway. I had no desire to be notified by a flashing light. My only alerts were sound for phone, text, appointments. I just check every once in a while for mail, Plus you get badge notifications and the top down notifications if you really want notifications. But to your problem, try this

1. Go to Settings on your iPhone

2. Go into General

3. Then go into Accessibility

4. In here, scroll down and tap on the “LED Flash for Alert” to turn it ON.
06:58pm 15/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1330 posts
Huh? Boeing is a US company. Somehow I don't think Boeing Australia are going to design us an air superiority fighter that can shoot down US aircraft. We are doing our own world leading research in the next generation of aerospace - UQ have a Centre for Hypersonics. I met one of the researchers out there recently and they are doing such awesome stuff. Trying to build our own human-piloted jet aircraft would be a colossal waste of money; even an apparently crappy F-35 would probably be better than what 95% of the rest of the world can throw at us. Let's build some hypersonic intelligent robot things that you control with an iPhone. What could possibly go wrong?


Well this is where discussing this subject on a gaming forum with people who don't know what they are talking about enters the ridiculous.

We produce some of the best aeronautical engineers from our universities but they are snapped up straight away never to return unless there is a company doing defence contracting (like Boeing Australia). Many of our technicians (the ex RAAF ones) are snapped up by foreign airlines and companies because our guys are trained so well, one of the reasons why our aircraft don't crash.

To go it on our own would really tread on quite a few noses, particularly American. That would lead to other items of equipment being endangered because the US would screw us over.

25 years ago I was the RAAF overseas maintenance manager for the F-18 Hornet. Many reparable items were sent to the US to be repaired by McDonald Douglas (MDD), Bendix, USN etc. They decided that we needed to pay them US$100 million per annum including a US$1 million admin fee even if we didn't send items to be repaired. The purchase price of 3 new F-18s per year.

I was tasked with sorting out why the price was so high. It turned out that we were going to pay for the all repair facilities to stay in operation despite the USN, MARINES, RCAF and SPAF (Spanish) having purchased the aircraft. Basically we were paying for them. Further I found out that both the RCAF and SPAF were going to be charged the same. This turned out that the RAAF, RCAF, and SPAF would pay for all repairs of USN and Marines F-18 Hornet Aircraft.

I gutted the price, based reparable estimates only on our fleet and figure came in at US$9.9 million and US$100k per annum. Naturally both MDD and USN/Marines were baying for blood, mine in particular. But there had been no contract when the bought the F-18 to pay whatever the US decided we would pay for repairs. Worse still they had found out who it was who told the RCAF and SPAF what was happening. The Canadians and Spanish did appreciate the info.

It did get to the highest level in the RAAF but work was steadfastly supported. Partially because we were right and also because I discovered some very embarrassing information that even the US Dept of Defence didn't know about from a contractor previously mentioned.

The reason for the above anecdotal is to show that all aspects of Australia engineering are capable of designing and producing a world class standard 5th gen fighter/strike aircraft. Which, I believe, would be cheaper than the F-35 and a lot better.
08:14pm 15/02/13 Permalink
mooby
Brisbane, Queensland
6267 posts
nice insight h jim. /thread
09:41pm 15/02/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
1871 posts
Very interesting Jim, ta.

SPAF is the best airforce name I've seen to-date!
10:00pm 15/02/13 Permalink
Mephz
Brisbane, Queensland
1319 posts
in all seriousness though, I'm astounded by the level of fighter jet knowledge itt. makes for good reading, I'm enjoying it.
Well some other interesting facts for your leisure (or pant soiling next flight you go on).
There are commercial airliners that at max cruising altitude a mere 5' (degree) change in angle of attack can result in complete wing root stall ( I say wing root as all commercial planes are designed with washout to ensure the root of the wing stalls before the tip, a tip stall is generally bad... and violent, whereas a wing root stall is more gradual and predictable)
5 degrees between enough lift to maintain flight or stall, fine line huh? :)


Here is an awesome video which shows what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFcW5-1NP60

Gives you a good idea of the flow of air over a wing, NB: the wing tips the string starts to become turbulent after the wing root. Washout on wings is designed so the angle of incidence on the wing is less at the tip (in laymens terms : the inner part of a wing is angled more than at the tip such that the tip flies 'straighter' and thus stalls last) - Since your ailerons (control surface) are (typically) located towards the wing tips this is what you want to stall last so you retain control.
Secondly, if the tips lose lift first it can violently roll towards a particular side and enter a spin, the inner spinning wing is then producing no lift and the outer wing produces lift (as its going around the outside of the spin) thus further increasing the spin and an autorotation occurs.
Some planes this is actually not recoverable and it basically means plane = doomed.

Flat spinning (think top-gun gooseman death) isn't entirely unrecoverable but the nature of it means little airflow over cotnrol surfaces and thus difficult to correct. Not all planes can flat spin and it depends on their airframe and weight distribution.

Center of Gravity for a plane is extremely important (thus loading of an aircraft is hugely important and part of being a commercial pilot [think smaller than qantas etc.] means calculating luggage + fuel + passenger and distribution of weight etc.)
Many aviation accidents attributed to poor loading of the aircraft (even so much so as the landing gear retracting the weight needs to be considered).

I like the old saying:
A nose heavy plane flies poorly.
A tail heavy plane flies once.

;)

Aviation, not quite as simple as just throwing some wings on something and it flying.

(edit) fixed link I think
11:31pm 15/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13490 posts
Well this is where discussing this subject on a gaming forum with people who don't know what they are talking about enters the ridiculous.

I don't see how anything you posted rebut's trog's claim that Boeing Australia as a US firm would tow the US foreign policy line? If anything your remarks about dealing with the USA seems to reaffirm his position. Why would Boeing want to 'ruffle the feathers' of the largest buyer of military ordinance in the world by building stuff for the pissy little defence contract that Australia could offer?

We have talented aerospace engineers but we would basically need to nationalise any organisation that would produce Australian-made world class military aircraft. Then we come back to the Collins problem ... or do we have great airplane guys but s*** boat boys ... ?
11:54pm 15/02/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9907 posts
4 Corners monday night looks at this fighter deal.
12:49am 16/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1332 posts
I don't see how anything you posted rebut's trog's claim that Boeing Australia as a US firm would tow the US foreign policy line? If anything your remarks about dealing with the USA seems to reaffirm his position. Why would Boeing want to 'ruffle the feathers' of the largest buyer of military ordinance in the world by building stuff for the pissy little defence contract that Australia could offer?We have talented aerospace engineers but we would basically need to nationalise any organisation that would produce Australian-made world class military aircraft. Then we come back to the Collins problem ... or do we have great airplane guys but s*** boat boys ... ?


To the first part the answer is foreign exchange.

Concerning the Collins class;

1) Poor and incorrect welding carried out in Sweden during construction
2) Substandard manufacturing of plant by foreign sub contractors
3) Kockums not retesting their design after lengthening the hull and changing the propeller design
4) Propellers supplied by Kockums being poorly manufactured
5) Poorly designed Periscope Mastheads with Kockums refusing to take responsibility
6) US software contractors refusing to supply software to each other and contractors being unable to do the work (falsely stating they could do the work)

Basically, the ADF requires the highest standards and, as a generalisation, foreign companies fail consistently to meet our standards. Its why QANTAS, prior to privatisation, never had incidences in the air or any crash.

Because we are such a small contract that we require the highest standards as we don't want to lose an aircraft etc through manufacturing fault. You should be proud that the ADF requires the highest standards in the world. Aren't we worth the best?
08:48am 16/02/13 Permalink
TicMan
Melbourne, Victoria
8452 posts
All this plane talk gets me even more excited for Avalon in a couple of weeks.
09:20am 16/02/13 Permalink
taggs
6080 posts
collins class (when working admittly) more than holds it own, and it a great sub (again when working)


Good thing reliability isn't an important metric when evaluating the effectiveness of weapons platforms ;)
10:07am 16/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3767 posts
the collins is a good sound design, as jim pointed out, it was let down not by our work, but by others
it is a world beating sub.

when we did built planes (the CAC saber) they were of the best standard, and are very collectable now (due to the high built qualitity)
10:37am 16/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13491 posts
the collins is a good sound design, as jim pointed out, it was let down not by our work, but by others it is a world beating sub.

But hang on, it was still our build. If I outsource dev to india and they f*** it up, its still MY fault.

This highlights the problem as far as I see it. We may have technical prowess (the boat's design was apparently solid) but lack the industrial military complex to make building original advanced military hardware a serious proposition. Conjuring up this apparatus would be a risky (potentially s***** outcomes, see Collins) or horrendously expensive exercise.

We should just buy the best that's currently available through our military partnerships, and yelling at the Americans to permit export of F-22s. A 1T economy just isn't big enough to properly support independent development of world class military ordnance. Half the country is having seizures about building a 40B broadband network ... and we're seriously considering a 60B+ aeroplane?!
11:44am 16/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3768 posts
but what do you define as the best?

best suited, or the best product that the US will sell us????

in combat tests the dassault is the best current aircraft on the market (as backed up by many different airforce assesments)

the F-35 is only best in theory and only when using the origianal spec (which has been changed and lessened a number of times) and only against lesser aircraft
12:18pm 16/02/13 Permalink
Mordecai
Victoria
1517 posts
Half the country is having seizures about building a 40B broadband network ... and we're seriously considering a 60B+ aeroplane?!

Just need to tell anyone voting Libs that it is to keep boat people out. They will vote yes for it right away.
02:20pm 16/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1333 posts
But hang on, it was still our build. If I outsource dev to india and they f*** it up, its still MY fault.This highlights the problem as far as I see it. We may have technical prowess (the boat's design was apparently solid) but lack the industrial military complex to make building original advanced military hardware a serious proposition.


If that were the case you would be correct but it wasn't. For the most part to purchase the design we have to also let them build it, or some of it. It was the standards that they failed to meet that caused the problems. Either it was a misunderstanding or deliberate but either way we pay for it. This is why we should be doing it all here. Plus the possibility of sell overseas.

Unfortunately, Australian industry is not interested. I'll give you another example;

When ASTA (now Boeing Australia) was building our F-18s there was a problem in the US with the glass which formed the windshield (front part of the canopy). The US glass manufacturer lost the Quality Assurance. ASTA was the only company in the world producing the windshields. So MDD asked the RAAF to see if ASTA was interested in producing a minimum of 1500 per year @ US$70k each.

MDD said they would provide all the tooling and jigs free. ASTA advised us that they weren't interested in manufacturing because after they finished our production run they were going to get into just doing maintenace. We asked them how much it cost to produce a windshield and the responded AU$20k. This meant they would be making a US$50k profit per windshield......but they weren't interested........unbelieveable. ASTA never got another maintenance contract from the RAAF after that and were subsequently bought out by Boeing who now do maintenance and produce windshields......for everyone....profits to the US......

but what do you define as the best?best suited, or the best product that the US will sell us????in combat tests the dassault is the best current aircraft on the market (as backed up by many different airforce assesments)the F-35 is only best in theory and only when using the origianal spec (which has been changed and lessened a number of times) and only against lesser aircraft


We are quite capable of producing an aircraft which is better than the Rafale or F-35. The problem is the Coalition is too cheap the have the balls to do it and are permanently attached to a USA nipple. Labor well, I just don't know why.

We are constantly losing our best people to US and European interests. The rest that are left behind....
05:06pm 16/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3769 posts
so true jim

I think some people would be shocked to learn the sorts of things that used to be made in this country, and are no longer

(then there are other things that just done make sence, like sending the iron ore overseas, only to buy back the finished product, we used to steel that was up there with the best, and now?)

I also find it laughable that managers that are taught and trained here are sort after people oversea's, yet we can't have aussies at the head of our biggest icon's because we lack know how?

take qantas, currently being run into the ground by a guy that help run ansett into the ground, (yet touts that jetstar is doing well, when infact if it wasn't for all the side deals that are keeping it afloat truth is it wouldn't be in great shape, and jetstar trying to get into japan, stupid move, low cost carriers keep trying, and keep getting beaten by ana and jal, and for a good reason, it is already an overserved market)
06:15pm 16/02/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
22245 posts
I've used the F35 a few times in Arma2 and it seemed pretty solid so overall this is good news.
07:28pm 16/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13492 posts
That may be technically correct about the Collins contracts etc Jim, but 50-60B+ is a massive investment when the yanks have already informally agreed to just sell us the F-22 (normally not available for export). We should never have bought into the F-35 development program, let alone go it alone. Our Government has a 300B annual budget and we're seriously talking about developing our own fighter aircraft with a likely program cost of over 50 billion dollars?

That's 6% of our national GDP (20% of the Government's annual budget, TWO YEARS total defence budget, $2608 for every Australian!!) on a f*****g aeroplane when we only need to spend a few billion to buy a shiny new fleet and let an allied nation with a much larger defence budget bear the program cost.

If we had a real and credible threat and no alternative, sure. But we don't need to do this and we have no enemies to shoot down.
12:30pm 17/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36731 posts
We are quite capable of producing an aircraft which is better than the Rafale or F-35. The problem is the Coalition is too cheap the have the balls to do it and are permanently attached to a USA nipple. Labor well, I just don't know why.
I have little doubt we could do it "better" (for some values of better), but I have massive doubts that it is in any way a good idea. As Hoggy points out it just doesn't make any sense from a financial point of view (especially if you believe, as I do, that the age of air superiority belonging to human-piloted traditional fighters is on the way out).
We are constantly losing our best people to US and European interests. The rest that are left behind....
Funnily enough I was asked to speak on a panel on this topic in IT last week (at Parliament House in Canberra) at a NICTA event. It is a common problem in basically anything and if you can come up with a solution then you will solve a lot of problems for a lot of industries!
04:27pm 17/02/13 Permalink
Mephz
Brisbane, Queensland
1322 posts
(especially if you believe, as I do, that the age of air superiority belonging to human-piloted traditional fighters is on the way out).
I doubt you'll see the military vehicles change too much.
The weapons that are used and the systems to control them weigh huge amounts as they are and require a machine big enough to be able to carry it all.

Perhaps military weapons platforms that utilise people flying them 'FPV' from the ground will be the way eventually, but I doubt it will ever be fully automated.

The main staple I see quadcopters and drones being used for is search and rescue.

With FPV and R/C being so cheap and readily available I'm not sure why it's not used more often.
Someone lost in a forest for example, a few SES/FPV search and rescue people drive out as far as they can.. Get out, and fly around looking for people. use some Infrared cameras on them. and your search and rescue just got infinitely faster with more area being covered and cheap as chips.

The batteries can even be recharged back at the vehicle whilst they travel to the next point for the next search diameter.
04:50pm 17/02/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
17820 posts
(especially if you believe, as I do, that the age of air superiority belonging to human-piloted traditional fighters is on the way out).


i think this is more your inner sci-fi fanboy talking than reality
04:59pm 17/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1334 posts
That's 6% of our national GDP (20% of the Government's annual budget, TWO YEARS total defence budget, $2608 for every Australian!!) on a f*****g aeroplane when we only need to spend a few billion to buy a shiny new fleet and let an allied nation with a much larger defence budget bear the program cost.


Well the defence budget should be 5% of GDP anyway but it hasn't been like that since the 1960s.

Sorry but we also pay a portion applicable to the R&D cost for the number of aircraft we buy. BTW the US always run R&D at a profit whether it is commercial or Govt. Yes, they are making a profit for the R&D of the F-35.

I have little doubt we could do it "better" (for some values of better), but I have massive doubts that it is in any way a good idea. As Hoggy points out it just doesn't make any sense from a financial point of view (especially if you believe, as I do, that the age of air superiority belonging to human-piloted traditional fighters is on the way out).


The question should never be that it costs too much but whether it should be spend here or over there. People who solely focus on cost are myopic. Ask something like will spending the money here benefit the country? Will we improve our manufacturing base? Employment opportunity and diversity? Will there be a return in taxes from the purchase (wages and company taxes)?

We aren't talking about 100 years time. Further, we aren't discussing theoretically the AI controlled drones of science fiction

Funnily enough I was asked to speak on a panel on this topic in IT last week (at Parliament House in Canberra) at a NICTA event. It is a common problem in basically anything and if you can come up with a solution then you will solve a lot of problems for a lot of industries!


Solutions are easy, having the intestinal fortitude or guts/balls to actually do something if you can is the point. All I see is gutless politicians who won't suffer any sort of pain to get the job done.
05:07pm 17/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13493 posts
BTW the US always run R&D at a profit whether it is commercial or Govt.

I don't think they coudl have run the F-22 as a profitable project - they didn't sell them to anyone?! The USA runs a profit for their projects because lots of smaller allied nations don't have the money to DIY.

5% of GDP means a 50B annual defence budget. If we accept that the budgets of the F-18, F-22 and F-35 are indicative, then the project will still cost us the entire annual defence budget. So we'd need to take 10-20 years to build a plane if we accept 5-10% as a reasonable portion of the budget to go to it? Given the failure of the Collins submarine project, will we convince other to buy our planes?

I get that you're a military guy but I don't follow that there is an urgent need to double our defence budget to build our own air superiority fighter aircraft. Who are we fighting with them??!
05:14pm 17/02/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
17821 posts
Who are we fighting with them??


5 o'clock charlie from indonesia
05:20pm 17/02/13 Permalink
Infidel
Netherlands
4026 posts
Just take a look at what the Indians are doing with their air force, they have an interesting mix of things.
11:05pm 17/02/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
1873 posts
Surely we can just dial 1800-AMERICA if we're ever in a war.

New Zealand doesn't even have an air force now.
11:15pm 17/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1335 posts
I get that you're a military guy but I don't follow that there is an urgent need to double our defence budget to build our own air superiority fighter aircraft. Who are we fighting with them??!


Well if you look at it that way then for most of the last 60+ years we haven't had a need for fighter aircraft. Which is what you are stating. We didn't need the CAC Sabre, Dassault Mirage IIIO, F111 or the A/F-18A. We haven't engaged in air combat since Korea and even then it was very little.

From 1972 to 1998 we also had no need for an Army. From 1945 until..... we've had no need for submarines....or destroyers, frigates, landing ships, support vessels.

Think of all the billions we would have saved not having a defence force because we haven't been fighting.....

I'll let you think of the obvious reason......


or is it not obvious to someone who is myopic....
11:37pm 17/02/13 Permalink
t
Brisbane, Queensland
233 posts
Well I have 20/10 vision, and I think we've wasted way too much money on "defence" over those years.
07:15am 18/02/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13494 posts
Well if you look at it that way then for most of the last 60+ years we haven't had a need for fighter aircraft. Which is what you are stating.

That's a straw man dude. Its not what I'm saying at all, we need to maintain a strong air force in our role as a regional power and for that reason I endorse the procurement and maintenance of a top tier fleet.

I just don't see what is the urgency behind blowing 2x the current national defence budget on a DIY air superiority project, when our CURRENT loadout can annihilate the indos already. Aside from nationalistic notions over 'what we used to build in this country' what's the ROI here?

Edit: And with regards to our 'normal' setting of 5% of GDP on defence, this surge to 74B per annum spend would catapult Australia to the third largest military budget in the world, leapfrogging the likes of the UK, Russia, Saudia Arabia, India, Germany, France and Japan. This sort of drastic Australian militarisation would destabalise the region dramatically and probably antagonise already strained Sino-Western relations...

We're currently the 13th biggest military spender, so why do we need to become #3?! I guess we could build some nukes and demand a permanent security council spot?

Source: Wiki: SIPRI Yearbook 2012 – World's top 15 military spenders
09:08am 18/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36732 posts
Think of all the billions we would have saved not having a defence force because we haven't been fighting.....
Couldn't we have just established more US bases on our soil and let them done the work for us? Then we get free defence plus they dump all that lovely money into our economy.
10:33am 18/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3770 posts
for those that are a little interested, just heard that 4 corners is covering the bungling in regards to the selection process (basiclly it was this plane, and no other companies need to bother to tender)
03:36pm 18/02/13 Permalink
ara
Sydney, New South Wales
3589 posts
From 1972 to 1998 we also had no need for an Army. From 1945 until..... we've had no need for submarines....or destroyers, frigates, landing ships, support vessels. .


what about all the humanitarian and relief roles that are taking up most of the military's time these days?

flood, earth quake, fire, tsunami etc are the main enemies these days, and it is hard to resolve any of those with a fighter plane.
04:28pm 18/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3773 posts
ara, if the funding was transfered to better equip and train the SES, and rural fire service, (and increase the scope that they cover and train for) and treated those services like the army reserve (ie, train etc like normal, then get paid to help in those areas that require it) you'd find that we would more cover the humanitarian needs

HOWEVER, PNG, Timor, and a few other places that escape my mind right now, would not be free

we could go the route of the kiwis, they have no jets (other than vip transports) and help as much as we do (on a per person scale) but that would be a massive loss of some of the great pilots that we have (not that the RAAF treats them all that well, after all it seems a well beaten path to do your time in the raaf, then go to the airlines because the pay is way above the RAAF)
04:44pm 18/02/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9916 posts
4 Corners tonight

It's been billed as the smartest jet fighter on the planet, designed to strike enemies in the air and on the ground without being detected by radar. But after a decade of intensive development, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is over budget, a long way behind schedule and described by one expert as "big, fat and draggy".

The JSF project could cost Australian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Is this plane a super fighter or a massive waste of money?


http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm
04:59pm 18/02/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
5701 posts
if the funding was transfered to better equip and train the SES, and rural fire service


That's a fairly narrow view of the skills & expertise defence force personnel bring to disaster situations.
What about tasks like large scale emergency supply logistics, specialist medical treatment, long distance hospital evacuations etc?

They're primarily volunteer organisations - how much usage would they get out of their fleet of C-17s & C-130s after the emergency was over?
05:09pm 18/02/13 Permalink
ara
Sydney, New South Wales
3592 posts
That's a fairly narrow view of the skills & expertise defence force personnel bring to disaster situations.What about tasks like large scale emergency supply logistics, specialist medical treatment, long distance hospital evacuations etc?They're primarily volunteer organisations - how much usage would they get out of their fleet of C-17s & C-130s after the emergency was over?


yeah, i like the army/defense force as a multipurpose organisation because lets face it, most of the time we aren't at war so if they are out doing other things i think that is better for them, to keep their skills up to date and for us as tax payers, to get value out of them.

im not sure of the SES/RFS would be able to do the things the army can, the ability for the army to deploy equipment and set up logistics, to deploy engineers and builders and to evacuate/rescue people all at short notice couldn't be replicated by another organisation in Australia.
05:18pm 18/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3774 posts
yeah, i like the army/defense force as a multipurpose organisation because lets face it, most of the time we aren't at war so if they are out doing other things i think that is better for them, to keep their skills up to date and for us as tax payers, to get value out of them.im not sure of the SES/RFS would be able to do the things the army can, the ability for the army to deploy equipment and set up logistics, to deploy engineers and builders and to evacuate/rescue people all at short notice couldn't be replicated by another organisation in Australia.



well, the army do very little evacuation and rescue,

i agree in thier current forms the RFS/SES wouldn't be able to do all of it, however the SES was born from the civil defence sevice, and they are more able to be people on the ground quicker than other, due to the fact that there are many people spead over many many areas,

not the same amount of people in very few places
05:51pm 18/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1336 posts
That's a fairly narrow view of the skills & expertise defence force personnel bring to disaster situations.What about tasks like large scale emergency supply logistics, specialist medical treatment, long distance hospital evacuations etc?They're primarily volunteer organisations - how much usage would they get out of their fleet of C-17s & C-130s after the emergency was over?


Funnily enough, other than major servicings, most of the transport fleet are being used for other tasks. 25 years ago when we had 4 x B707, 24 x C130 and 24 x DHC-4 Caribou you might see a total of 5 aircraft on the tarmac at RAAF Richmond. Three of those would be loading for a flight and the other two just landed and being turned around for another task or going into a major service. This is without being tasked for Army use.

BTW the Army pays for tactical transport so all the Hercules, Blackhawks and Chinooks have come out of the Army Budget. They get priority on use.

Here is something else, we just took 12 C130H Hercules out of service. Two are going to Indonesia as a gift and the other 10 are.....

Well in any case they could have been transfered to civil use for firefighting;

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120702072616-c-130-waldo-canyon-fire-story-top.jpg
MAFFS is "a self-contained aerial firefighting system that can discharge 11,000 liters of water or fire retardant in less than five seconds, covering an area 500m long by 50m wide."


But nothing has happened. I'm quite sure they could have been used in TAS, WA, VIC or NSW.
07:18pm 18/02/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3776 posts
on a side note jim, there was a blast from the tarmac past at BNE when I got to work,

A DC 10 sitting in the parking bays, it was a tanker, just unsure which airforce. I'm really hoping that it will be there tomorrow, I love the sound of that big trijet on takeoff
08:17pm 18/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1337 posts
on a side note jim, there was a blast from the tarmac past at BNE when I got to work,A DC 10 sitting in the parking bays, it was a tanker, just unsure which airforce. I'm really hoping that it will be there tomorrow, I love the sound of that big trijet on takeoff


KC10 is USAF.

Ours are KC-30A or Airbus A330

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/KC-30A_RAAF_YBBN_20111106.jpg


BTW link to airpower australias website about the JSF

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
10:27pm 18/02/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
1874 posts
By that airpower article, it looks like the US have made the best fighter ever, the F-22 Raptor, then made a much worse one, the F-35, and are giving the F-35 to their allies. Thanks guys!
11:05pm 18/02/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1338 posts
By that airpower article, it looks like the US have made the best fighter ever, the F-22 Raptor, then made a much worse one, the F-35, and are giving the F-35 to their allies. Thanks guys!


Not quite because they haven't yet got one operational squadron of F-35s but they have completed the production run on a better aircraft.

If you watched 4 Corners they say the F-35 is better....it has a secret.......but still doesn't turn, accelerate or avoid missiles better than the F-18. We could buy 4 x F-18s for 1 F-35.......

The F-35 concurrency is like Holden buidling a Commodore but only three wheels turn, one door opens, has no boot. All of which will be fixed by the time the last car is produced. At our expense.

The original F-18s we bought in 1985 are not the same aircraft today. Almost as soon as we got the aircraft we had to commence an upgrade program to keep them up to date. Repair facilities would normally incorporate the upgrades as they repaired an item. Once a repair facility stopped upgrading a part then the pre-moddified broken items were no longer repairable so we were forced to buy new items at the latest mod status. We then throw away a part that could have been repaired if the yanks had a mind to and even serviceable parts were destroyed because the mod update had finnished.

Funnily enough we had a policy of not repairing parts that weren't broken.
11:59pm 18/02/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
5702 posts
Heh, interesting 4 corners docco last night.
The JSF program has all the hallmarks of a software development deathmarch, it made sense that software was the part that was so far behind.
10:06am 19/02/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36746 posts
Just in case you were still wondering when the robot flying army was going to come to enslave us all, it just got a bit closer:

11:02am 22/02/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
11:02am 22/02/13 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1
This thread is archived and cannot be replied to.