F35 JSF comprehensively beaten by Su35
 

Interesting reports surfacing about the state of the JSF programme after reports of poor performance in computer simulation war games against the Su35 where it was comprehensivley "clubbed like a baby seal".

Sounds like the Australian Govt. might be better off buying something else...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...857899066.html

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/0...alth-figh.html

http://news.smh.com.au/national/jet-...0923-4m3p.html

What exactly was this war game test.....Dowly v Hunter in IL2 :hmm:

:lol:

I can see the justificitation for a F-22-kind of interceptor (and even the F22 is not invulnerable), but the F-35 I never found convincing. If I were them I would go for some of the existing multi-role-fighter bombers, or skip the step and go for drones completely. So much for functionality. the price of the F-35 simply means a total waste of tax money - and this in the current financial situation of the US, and two wars needing to be financed. The cost-effect-ratio imo calculates extremely bad.

It were far cheaper forces that showed the limits of hightech warfare in Iran and Afghanistan, and it is far cheaper solutions from the Russian side that in these wargames show the limits of such expensive, prestigious hightech-systems. Quality can compensate for quantity only to certain degree, and not more. You cannot compensate without limits for being outnumbered by too big a ratio. and this: the fewer and the more expensive systems you use: the more hurting and painful is the loss of even just a single one of them.

What worries me is that it's my tax dollar that will get wasted with this sort of mess.

I want my military to have good slick toys and all but not at any expense and if that means buying something less shiny then so be it.

@Jim, I hope it was a little more sophisticated than that. At least with someone who can land their plane.:rotfl:

You guys missed this part:

F35 No good?.........Beaten by the Su35 you say?

:hmm:

Answer = Buy the Su35 instead! :D

What worries me is that this was a computer simulation for which few have access to the results.

The thing is the USAF want the F-22 and will use it as ammunition against the F-35.

Remember when there was the DERA simulation of the Typhoon vs every other current fighter and the only one that beat it was the F-22 and against the Su-35 it had a 10 to 1 win ratio. Everyone poo pooed it as unrealistic. This is the same.

Until a full up version gets in the air we won't know.

Personally as a multi-role aircraft for what the UK needs it is fine....after all the Typhoon is doing very well and unlike the Rafale can self designate its LGBs

For a different viewpoint, see this article:

"Lockheed Martin, Air Force defend F-35", at

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...fense_092208w/

My hope is that it makes no difference, in that it never has to be put to use.

Having said that, I know it is not going to become reality, so let's give the pilot the best we can to get the mission done and get out safely.

Seriously though, the F-35 is still under development, the Su-35 is based on a design that has been around for a very long time and has recieved several major upgrades

They should just redo this when the F-35 enters service

Umm, will you take this part into account had the exercise said the JSF would have won by a mile?

I just hope that the Plane we do get is up to what Australia needs, otherwise we will be up the creek. There has been a arms build up here in South East Asia, and while things are mostly stable, that can change quickly!

We're in big trouble arms-wise in the next 50-odd years.

China, india are both engaged in a HUGE buildup. Indonesia getting their kilos when we can't even keep a collins boat crewed. malaysia and SK getting scorpenes (iirc), and almost all the smaller SE asian countries getting new sukhois.

We're still using F111s as our main strike aircraft, and we're planning on pinning our hopes on a developmental aircraft. F18s, well, they're capable enough, but still getting on.

and ground wise, we're down to what, 60 odd tanks? in a country this size?? can you spell trouble?

I take everything with a grain of salt man. The SU-35 probably would beat this thing more often than not in a gun only knife fight. Add in AMRAAMS, AIM-9X's, and range and the story is very different. The SU-35 wouldn't have a chance.

The point being, it is the scenario that we really know nothing about. This thing is built as a penetrator that can hold its own if you really analyze it. No SU-35 is going to have a chance unless it gets a visual on it. Plain and simple. So how was the simulation run? That is the million $ question.

-S

Personally, I'm more inclined to take it as more or less realistic, given that the United States has not written a lot of scenarios where their new planes lose.

Probably, it involved a scenario where the F-35 lost part of its stealth advantage, through the use of VHF radars, IR detection, and/or counter-detection of the APG-81 (assumption that the LPI will eventually or even has been countered, or maybe its jammer mode gave it away). Or even that it just isn't as stealthy as we think it is after all.

Given such a setup, it is not surprising that the JSF, whose kinematics are not exactly the best (which is why, as you admit, it might well lose a gun fight) would get clobbered.

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.