What a Price To Pay for F35 Fighter!

[Earthjade]

They really didn't have much choice at Crete though............

But they had more than a fighting chance at Chesapeake Bay.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Well then you throw our entire military history on its' head. A small number of excellent Longbow archers decimating the good French knights at Agincourt. Fewer excellent well armed ships under Drake bested the thousands of good (and poor) quality vessels of the Spanish Armada. The Australian Corp at Mont Saint Quentin vs the combined might of the Imperial German Marines and Prussian regiments (we smashed them good!). A few dozen squadrons of excellent Spitfires vs the Lutfwaffe's overwhelming odds in the Battle of Britain. One well disciplined Australian infantry Company in Long Tan vs a combat effective Viet Cong Regiment, local regiment and North Vietnamese Battalion combined. One US mechanised brigade driving up a highway to Baghdad vs most of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard (Thunder Run, by David Zucchino). One team of excellently trained Delta soldiers even after their helicopter crashed vs unknown numbers of Taliban (Roberts Ridge)

You may as well use the Russian operating ratio of 8:1 if you just want more numbers for your reasons, and resort to mass wave attacks of untrained peasants with AK47s. Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-American military history is filled with successes when using well developed tactics, well trained small units and up to date technology. Plenty of failures too (Isandlwana, Western Front stalemate, response to Blitzkrieg etc) often because of ignoring tactics or not using up to date technology.

To add to what i said previously - i believe you have very conveniently dismissed the lessons which the Germans taught the rest of the world in WW2 - namely the tactics of Blitzkrieg - where concentrated firepower was used to overcome any and all targets.

the Germans did not always have the very best of all equipment, but if it was not the very best (#1) then it certainly was a close second best! however the point is they attacked in numerically superior concentrations ... outnumbering the enemy!

An important lesson i believe in modern warfare - and especialy in modern airial warfare.

The Germans didn't outnumber anybody except the Belgians and Dutch.

I'm not conveniently ignoring anything. I'm actively aware of what the Germans taught the rest of the world. Blitzkrieg under the Germans always involved fewer numbers of excellently trained troops with up to date technology. It involved going around defended positions and hard points, not hitting them head on like in WWI. Cut off a unit and deplete its' resources and reinforcement. Concentrated firepower at the enemies' weakest point. Destroy the enemies' ability to manoevre and you destroy their ability to continue as an offensive force. There were always fewer tanks, fewer panzer divisions, numerically facing the British in France or Russians at any time. Watching documentaries leads you to believe the German army was just tanks and the air was full of Stuka dive bombers. Reading the history books they all state that after the Blitzkrieg (tanks, mechanised infantry etc) had destroyed or contained the manoevrability of an enemy, they moved on to the next target or contact. Conventional light infantry were always following on from the mechanised infantry to continue containing the enemy until they were soft enough for light infantry attack or they just surrendered.

It's no accident that Rommels text book on Blitzkrieg was called 'Infantry Attacks' and not 'Tank Attacks.'

Read 'Stalingrad' by Antony Beevor or any other book that details Operation Barbarossa, it was always about highly trained soldiers in their superior tanks moving faster and thinking quicker than superior numbers of inferior units could operate. It was when the Blitzkrieg was halted, due to Hitlers' lunacy and wanting a set piece and ideological victory at Stalingrad, that the tide was turned. By then, the Russians with their overwhelming numbers had the time to concentrate their Armies and give the Germans a taste of their own medicine.

+1

The point I was actually trying to make was that the Germans used very concentrated firepower (especially using aircraft and tanks) during Blitzkrieg ... and this overwhelmed the enemy.

 

[JulieW]

http://rt.com/usa/f35s-turbine-crack-flaw-310/

Could the 'fatal flaw' be that you could get killed flying one?
I love an ironic headline.

The jet's manufacturer says that stopping test runs of the state-of-the-art craft is only a "precautionary measure," but it isn't the first incident that has impacted the program. Years in the making, the humongous fleet of F-35s being developed for the Pentagon has experienced a myriad of obstacles before ever taking off the ground, and recent estimates suggest that the entire operation will cost the country $1 trillion in order to keep the jets up and running through 2050, dwarfing the original price-tag several times over. Now with yet another delay, the cost is expected to increase yet again. With each flight valued at around $238 million, though, further inspections will be required in order to make sure the entire trillion-dollar fleet doesn't go up in smoke.

 

[doomsday surprise]

Should be renamed the F-35 Flying Turkey! Lol this thing will be ready by 2025(maybe).

 

[lucky luke]

Should be renamed the F-35 Flying Turkey! Lol this thing will be ready by 2025(maybe).

I wonder if it's of potential value to the government to have the odd money pit like this? Afterall, there is foreign investment that is also driving this project. And perhaps that foreign investment is also being divested elsewhere in empire USA for other purposes unbeknown to the foreign "investors"?

 

[AngloSaxon]

English liberty at work?
I guess those sailors weren't shown a copy of the Magna Carta before they were press-ganged.
But jokes aside, the Spanish had a similar number of armed Merchantmen in their armada as the English. In fact, most of the Spanish losses to weather was those Merchantmen. For the great English victory the Spanish Armada was meant to be, most of the 20-odd Spanish galleons made it back to Spain to fight another day.

Drake claimed 5 of the 140-odd ships of the Armada in combat. The Irish weather did the rest (and not the last time the Irish pulled English buns out of the fire!)
So while there is this romantic image of Drake sailing into battle with a handful of ships against galleons bristling with cannon, it simply didn't happen (although the Battle of Gravelines was a good English naval action).

But while the Spanish Armada is often talked about, what about the English Armada of the next year?
Where the English suffered losses comparable to the Spanish Armada, 40 of the 130-odd ships failing to return to England?

While the Armada was bearing down on me I would take all possible steps to stop it too. Surely you must concede that if the English did not sail the ships they did the Armada would have been able to load Parmas army in France, sail straight onto Plymouth or straight up the Thames and take the capital. Yes the weather was the coup de grace but in pre-industrial naval battles often as much damage could be done by delaying the enemy until exhaustion, scurvy, fever or misadventure took their crews. The English tried all desperate measures including fireships but I still contend that without their small force of well trained ships mostly due to Drake and Howards' leadership prevented the Spanish army loading to the Armada. By then the winds and tides prevented the Armada from any course other than going the long way around Britain.

Plus Drake was sniping at the ships the Spanish was able to field for a year while it was being assembled, including his raid on Cadiz harbour buring the Spanish at anchor. That is my favourite pre-industrial naval action apart from the Battle of Lepanto which had a different context.

I doubt the Spanish felt their very existance was threatened by the English Armada

My understanding is that in August 1940, the RAF had 750 fighters to the Luftwaffe's 800 fighters, the other 1400-odd Luftwaffe planes being Stukas and bombers. It also seems that 1700 Hurricanes passed through Fighter Command throughout the battle, so it can't be said the British were not well-supplied. In the end, both the RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar amount of planes at around 1500 each, so close to a 1:1 ratio.
So again, the reality is not one of poor Biggin Hill Spitfires alone against a sky blackened with Me-109s leading to Churchill saying "so much by so many to so few" (but nothing but respect for those pilots who flew 3-4 sorties in a day).

Each German bomber was bristling with defensive machine guns and they flew in waves to protect each other (mutual support/layered defence). Your own figures point to the Poms losing twice as many aircraft as they started with! I think that underlines how tenuous a position that was. As always it was Hitlers lunacy that turned the tide by him ordering the bombing of cities rather than bombing of airfields and factories producing Hurricanes.

Did I not quote 3 failures? Did I not mention Isandlwana? I deliberately avoided mentioning Rourkes Drift which was a day later.

The British do have a prestigious record of military defeats and failures, my favourites being Patay, Castillon, Medway, Landen, Cape Lizard, Fontenoy, Cartegena de Indias, Carillon, Castlebar, Corunna and New Orleans.
It seems that as a general rule, the British should avoid doing battle at places that begin with a "C".

Yes well for every Agincourt there is a Patay looming.

 

[Earthjade]

I still contend that without their small force of well trained ships mostly due to Drake and Howards' leadership prevented the Spanish army loading to the Armada. By then the winds and tides prevented the Armada from any course other than going the long way around Britain.

[...]

Each German bomber was bristling with defensive machine guns and they flew in waves to protect each other (mutual support/layered defence). Your own figures point to the Poms losing twice as many aircraft as they started with! I think that underlines how tenuous a position that was.

No doubt both actions were hard-fought.
But coming back to the main point, it was that these two battles were used to demonstrate small, superior forces overcoming larger, competent enemies.
But what I was trying to show is that in the case of the Armada, the sizes of the forces were comparable and there were positive reports of Spanish seamanship at that time, so I'm not sure this is a good example of "so much owed by so many to so few".

Also in the case of the Battle of Britain, the sides were also comparable both in size of their single engined fighter forces and the quality of pilot training.
Losses in turn were comparable. Again, not really a case of small superior force overcoming a larger and competent enemy. In fact, it was the Luftwaffe that was at the disadvantage here - their bombers were vulnerable (half of all Luftwaffe losses from the battle) and they were fighting a well-prepared enemy over their home island with limited fuel in their tanks.

To illustrate an example of your point though, I would say the Battle of Myeongnyang is a good example, but these sorts of events are few and far between to make it anything close to a general principle of warfare.

 

[lucky luke]

Should be renamed the F-35 Flying Turkey! Lol this thing will be ready by 2025(maybe).

I wonder if it's of potential value to the government to have the odd money pit like this? Afterall, there is foreign investment that is also driving this project. And perhaps that foreign investment is also being divested elsewhere in empire USA for other purposes unbeknown to the foreign "investors"?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html

Even the US media (who's reporting needs to be taken with extreme care) acknowledges the extent of this money-pit.

 

[capt.sparrow]

Another simpleton move by those who steal and then spend our money.

 

[Lovey80]

The Indos bought a few billion dollar subs off the Russians a while back and probably have plans to buy some Migs or Sukhois in the future.
I'm not a military buff so I really don't know the good/bad/ugly about the F35, but my preference would've been to buy updated versions of F15's or F18's, my guess, more planes for your buck. Or look at some from the Russians. Nothing wrong with diversity
What attack helicopters did we end up getting for up north? I remember the Apache was being looked at but they bought something else.

They thought that they would be really smart and buy the Euro-Tiger. From what I know a fantastic aircraft straight off the shelf. However the retards in defence decided they would buy the Euro instead of the updated apache then try to retrofit it to fire US weapons. Problem with that is, the two systems don't talk to each other and the aircraft is useless. It was the "Air87" project, billions spent and still no helo.

 

[Lovey80]

If you were to bet on the outcome of a contest one-on-one between the two then i guess it would be prudent to know the strengths and weaknesses of both in order to sensibly. However when the Migs heavily outnumber the US fighter then you'd have to be a complete tool to actually believe that the US fighter would still come out on top!

so yeh - actually it is simply a question of applying some common sense - something i'm surprised you're showing a lack of here.

I'd like you to think about this. If one fighter has the capability to carry enough air to air armaments (missiles) to effectively take out 10 opposing fighters (say Migs). It has stealth technology that prevents/hinders it being seen by other enemy aircraft. Has radar/targeting capabilities that can have all 10 missiles locked on to 5 separate fighters and be fired and half way to the target before the Migs are even aware that there is a single opposing jet in the area. And by that time the single jet has turned and on its way well out of range.......

How much is your stack worth?

 

[lucky luke]

If you were to bet on the outcome of a contest one-on-one between the two then i guess it would be prudent to know the strengths and weaknesses of both in order to sensibly. However when the Migs heavily outnumber the US fighter then you'd have to be a complete tool to actually believe that the US fighter would still come out on top!

so yeh - actually it is simply a question of applying some common sense - something i'm surprised you're showing a lack of here.

I'd like you to think about this. If one fighter has the capability to carry enough air to air armaments (missiles) to effectively take out 10 opposing fighters (say Migs). It has stealth technology that prevents/hinders it being seen by other enemy aircraft. Has radar/targeting capabilities that can have all 10 missiles locked on to 5 separate fighters and be fired and half way to the target before the Migs are even aware that there is a single opposing jet in the area. And by that time the single jet has turned and on its way well out of range.......

How much is your stack worth?

Sorry mate and with all due respect to you. But, I've got to chip in on this one seeing as I was the one who facetiously joked about us (Australia) being better off getting a few various MIGs as well as investing a few bob in a Chinese fighter development project rather than continue sinking money into the F35 lemon. In short, lots of promises, lots of money, more money being asked, more time being asked, and we're still to see a single F35 for all that money and time. Even if it does live end up being as flash as the Yanks make it out to be, a Sopwith Camel would be a better investment. At least we could get it up in the sky tomorrow to do "something" (like fly) rather than wait another couple of years for our expensive lemon to finally be delivered.

 

[Lovey80]

If you were to bet on the outcome of a contest one-on-one between the two then i guess it would be prudent to know the strengths and weaknesses of both in order to sensibly. However when the Migs heavily outnumber the US fighter then you'd have to be a complete tool to actually believe that the US fighter would still come out on top!

so yeh - actually it is simply a question of applying some common sense - something i'm surprised you're showing a lack of here.

I'd like you to think about this. If one fighter has the capability to carry enough air to air armaments (missiles) to effectively take out 10 opposing fighters (say Migs). It has stealth technology that prevents/hinders it being seen by other enemy aircraft. Has radar/targeting capabilities that can have all 10 missiles locked on to 5 separate fighters and be fired and half way to the target before the Migs are even aware that there is a single opposing jet in the area. And by that time the single jet has turned and on its way well out of range.......

How much is your stack worth?

Sorry mate and with all due respect to you. But, I've got to chip in on this one seeing as I was the one who facetiously joked about us (Australia) being better off getting a few various MIGs as well as investing a few bob in a Chinese fighter development project rather than continue sinking money into the F35 lemon. In short, lots of promises, lots of money, more money being asked, more time being asked, and we're still to see a single F35 for all that money and time. Even if it does live end up being as flash as the Yanks make it out to be, a Sopwith Camel would be a better investment. At least we could get it up in the sky tomorrow to do "something" (like fly) rather than wait another couple of years for our expensive lemon to finally be delivered.

Hey I'm not defending the decision of buying the F-35 at all. In fact if the Tiger is anything to go by it is more than likely to be a monumental screw up.

I was simply pointing out the poorly thought out idea of YKY that there is no way one jet is going to take down 5 no matter how advanced it is. When in reality, the dogfight of yesteryear is over and the decisive advantage in modern jets fighting each other lies in its ability to detect, target, fire and run well before the other jet even knows its there. For arguments sake, if the F-35 can do that over the Mig, then YKY's argument falls apart entirely. But of course, if old mate from the four corners show is correct, then the F-35 certainly won't achieve this.

 

[Lovey80]

Actually, it would be a very similar comparison between the Abrahams tank and any T series tank in operation. The T series are dug in so far that their turrets are the only thing exposed but they are still dead before they can see the Abrahams coming across the desert. And before you pipe up YKY, no the Mig can not be compared to the Leopard 2 or the Israeli version.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

If you were to bet on the outcome of a contest one-on-one between the two then i guess it would be prudent to know the strengths and weaknesses of both in order to sensibly. However when the Migs heavily outnumber the US fighter then you'd have to be a complete tool to actually believe that the US fighter would still come out on top!

so yeh - actually it is simply a question of applying some common sense - something i'm surprised you're showing a lack of here.

I'd like you to think about this. If one fighter has the capability to carry enough air to air armaments (missiles) to effectively take out 10 opposing fighters (say Migs). It has stealth technology that prevents/hinders it being seen by other enemy aircraft. Has radar/targeting capabilities that can have all 10 missiles locked on to 5 separate fighters and be fired and half way to the target before the Migs are even aware that there is a single opposing jet in the area. And by that time the single jet has turned and on its way well out of range.......

How much is your stack worth?

I simply dont believe that the F35 has anywhere near these capabilities.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

For arguments sake, if the F-35 can do that over the Mig, then YKY's argument falls apart entirely. But of course, if old mate from the four corners show is correct, then the F-35 certainly won't achieve this.

YKY is pretty sure that the F35 wont achieve this - hence why 5 or more (even 1 or 2) of the latest MIGs would knock ten colours of cr@p outa it!! :lol:

 

[Earthjade]

I was simply pointing out the poorly thought out idea of YKY that there is no way one jet is going to take down 5 no matter how advanced it is. When in reality, the dogfight of yesteryear is over and the decisive advantage in modern jets fighting each other lies in its ability to detect, target, fire and run well before the other jet even knows its there. For arguments sake, if the F-35 can do that over the Mig, then YKY's argument falls apart entirely. But of course, if old mate from the four corners show is correct, then the F-35 certainly won't achieve this.

The F-35 certainly can't do this, but neither can the "King of Modern Fighters" the F-22:

http://theaviationist.com/2012/04/30/iran-f-22/#.US2ccMop8qg

Long story short, the US F-22s had mock exercises with French Rafales in the United Arab Emirates.
In six simulated dogfights, the result was 5 draws and 1 win for the F-22.
Although I'm not sure how you get a "draw" out of a dogfight.
Amazingly, a UAE Mirage 2000 even managed to score a win over an F-22!

Now, for a billion dollars, you can put 6 F-22s into the air and 12 Rafales into the air.
If pilot training is equal, it would make sense to go with the 12 Rafales.

 

[lucky luke]

The lemon keeps getting more ....... lemon like. Bring on the Migs!

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-would-be-defeated-aerial-combat-2013-3

"According to an article published by the Washington Times, the F-35A, the Conventional Take Off and Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, would be defeated in aerial combat because of its current shortcomings."

 

[shano73]

Yep the Oz goverment loves buying crap military equipment, just look at the Subs, Euro helicopter, 2nd hand ships from the USA which cost multi millions to outfit again,what else hmmmm......providing sub standard equipment to our front line troops - couple of ppl I know have had to order webbing, boots and other equipment from the US because the OZ gear provided is absolute shit. And I bet your ass the new air warfare destroyers will blow out big time. They really should just order another 100 FA-18 Super Hornets (those planes rock) and some more M1 Abram tanks (we only have 100 based in QLD, 100 tanks for our vast land mass is quite crap).

Would really love to know why the guberment do not buy weapon platforms that have been tried and tested for Oz conditions.

 

[lucky luke]

............. Think about the actual threat we have in this country, and what future operations we will be involved in, as part of Multi International force.

"Actual" threat or "perceived" threat?

As for "threat", how much of this has has to do with on our governments decisions to be involved in Multi-national International Forces?