![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Chief of the Boat
|
![]()
What exactly was this war game test.....Dowly v Hunter in IL2 :hmm:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Soaring
|
![]()
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.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]() Quote:
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: |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Rear Admiral
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,866
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
You guys missed this part:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
Ace of the Deep
![]() Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,140
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Ace of the Deep
![]() Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,236
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
F35 No good?.........Beaten by the Su35 you say?
:hmm: Answer = Buy the Su35 instead! ![]()
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Master of Defense
![]() Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,502
Downloads: 125
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
For a different viewpoint, see this article:
"Lockheed Martin, Air Force defend F-35", at http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...fense_092208w/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,643
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Chief of the Boat
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|