The Australain government still seems commited, but it does sound like there is some worries

http://news.smh.com.au/national/jet-...0924-4n3a.html

Its impossible to not be as stealthy as it is. IR detection is next to worthless in a the real world - just a nice gadget to have. Radars won't be able to see this thing for 20 years. Jammer? Doesn't need one. The advanced AESA RADAR it carries handles that now - as well as network intrusion and blowing out (destroying the electronics) enemy RADAR's as needed.

Lets put it this way, it is not an F-22, but it is still the 'second' best aircraft in the world for capability. Short of unknown US black programs of course.

-S

For someone who claims to see everything with a grain of salt, you sure are drinking the American doctrine and propaganda down very hard.

The exercise probably reflected what happened when you stepped outside the American assumptions in air combat.

The radar is not orders of magnitude more powerful than everyone elses, and Americans don't get to escape Inverse Squared Law, so unless the range is absolutely point blank, it is not going to be blowing out anyone's electronics. What it will instead do is blow any LPI capability the radar had, since it'll have to match the frequency of the enemy's non-LPI radar to jam it, and then everyone gets a bearing track.

As for IR, it is getting better. And for the stealth, it still has to obey physics.

This gives a little more information about how the results came to be

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-12377,00.html

Cynical strafe
 

Oh, so it compared two squadrons, and the F-35 squadron got clubbed? :D
Seriously, while one understands the need for security, the opaqueness concerning this issue is worrying.
Since you aren't willing to tell us squat about what that exercise was really about, we can't just decide to trust you on blind faith.
So, now it is a tabletop exercise? Does that mean a computer wasn't involved now? And I thought Fitzgribbon said it was so classified we aren't even to know about this? At this point, are we even really talking about the same exercise?
It just compared two different air forces, and if the press is getting it right, the air force with the F-35s are getting creamed. :)
How one can even analyze "force structure" vulnerabilities of aircraft without at least some air combat being simulated is beyond me. Or is it saying the F-35s were ruled as wiped out on the ground before they could take off, and that's why there was no air combat?
Lots of smoke, not a lot of specifics.

And of course we the taxpaying public are left wondering whether our money is going to be spent on a white elephant platform or not. And again of course the politicians will play politics on the issue rather than making sure they are spending wisely.

I frankly don't care either way on the issue of the capability of the aircraft itself, only as to whether our government is going to spend this sort of money that they make sure enough due diligence is done to prevent mistakes.

Ironically the platform the F-35 is planned to replace the F-111 suffered terribly from criticisms of it's design when we first purchased them in the early 1960's and 1970's due to some unfortunate incidents early its life. http://www.raaf.gov.au/raafmuseum/re...series3/A8.htm

subman sure you don't post on the strategypage forums?

The JSF is a strike plane, so of course it can't turn and burn with a Su-35. However until the plane is operational all this fanboy stuff about how great it is etc is all speculation based on publicity articles...

The F-22 is a different matter tested at Red Flag and commented on by pilots who have flown against it.

The F-35 is indeed a strike aircraft. But it is derived as a multirole platform. Meaning it can fight in the air-to-air spectrum as well. And will do so with some new revolutionary capabilities. Some of which you find in the F-22.

The Su-35 is simply a rehash of an old 1980's aircraft with newer and more capable upgrades. But it is simply just a newer derivative of the same old Flanker. It is not revolutionary in any way. The F-15C with it's sensor and weapons upgrades provides Su-35 with plenty of headaches on it's own. Su-35 and the upgraded F-15C are comparable in terms of their ability to control airspace. F-35 on the other hand brings in elements and capabilities neither one of these aircraft are capable of. I doubt Su-35 will be much of a match for F-35 once both are in their element. I believe F-35 will best it in both BVR and WVR in total. Not just in terms of aircraft maneuverability, but in weapons, sensors, detectability, and countermeasures. F-35 is a much better package in each of these areas.

The fanbois are out in force on this one.

F-35 to replace F-16.. F-16 not best in turn and burn dogfighting = F-35 NOT to be used to hold the air.

That is the F-22s job PERIOD.. The F-22 is much more expensive and advanced for beating the next gen threats the F-35 is what you send in to kill the next gen ground forces when they are packing more than 2 dollar SAMs.

But it does solidify the point that the F-35 needs to be the last manned fighter in the US fleet. It is only a matter of time before the enemies start to use mass drone tactics to defeat even F-22s.

What's a fanbois? I don't understand. I'm not so sure that the F-16 can be discredited as one of the best in BFM combat. I believe it to be one of the best for sure. In fact, it is very good when used in that role. It does have an excellent turn performance, excellent sustained turn rate, and ability to hold high g turns with small turn circle radius. F-35 will probably perform very similarly from everything I've seen. Sukhois are also extremely maneuverable and excellent in WVR combat. But those super high Alpha maneuvers are energy bleeders. They totally suck the life out of the jet performing those maneuvers. And these Sukhois will never accelerate from low energy to high speed like an F-16. Bottom line, both of those jets have strengths and weaknesses, as do all aircraft. But I have yet to see Russia produce anything like the U.S. and allies are producing in the 5th generation cycle. Russia probably still uses the Flanker base because it has worked for them and is a very excellent aircraft. But I don't expect it to be able to overcome some of the new things coming their way.

Perhaps. :hmm: Although, the U.S. has a headstart there as well. We may have the drones before they do.

What US drones? You mean the toys with a tiny payload that takes oogles of stuffz to work?

Fanboi = Fanboy or person who is extremely supportive of something for little reason that has little to no impact overall.

For instance. Being a fanboy who refuses to accept that the F-35 may be weak in a certain role is NOT going to have ANY effect on future orders of the aircraft.

The Reaper program so far has been highly successful for example. And yeah, the US UAV's right now are pretty much setting the standard in the use of these systems for battlefield surveillance, and are most capable in carrying Hellfires for surface atttack. I don't see anybody truly surpassing the U.S. in UAV operations in the near term with the amount of effort we're putting into them.

Ahh. OK. Why not just spell it properly as "Fanboy"? :doh: At any rate, what does pointing out the inherent strengths of the F-35 have to do with being a so called "Fanboy"? I don't refuse to see any weaknesses, as every weapons system has drawbacks somewhere. I just see that some of the technologies proven in F-22 design for air-to-air will also be incorporated into F-35 as well. This includes weapons, sensors, countermeasures, radar and IR stealth which are all revolutionary by design. This jet will also have high thrust to weight characteristics combined with a maneuvarable airframe. I haven't seen anything credible to show any bigtime deficiencies in capabilities. Nor do I believe Su-35 will pose any large true threat on the F-35 and it's operations once it is in it's true air-to-air element.