SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > General Topics
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-22-08, 09:52 PM   #1
TarJak
Fleet Admiral
 
TarJak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,052
Downloads: 150
Uploads: 8


Default 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
TarJak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 04:46 AM   #2
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 190,461
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

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

__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!

Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 05:02 AM   #3
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 42,602
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0


Default

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.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 07:27 AM   #4
TarJak
Fleet Admiral
 
TarJak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,052
Downloads: 150
Uploads: 8


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
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:
TarJak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 07:53 AM   #5
SUBMAN1
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,866
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

You guys missed this part:

Quote:
...It's not clear just how much Australian domestic politics have skewed the reporting on the exercise's results....
__________________
SUBMAN1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 06:55 PM   #6
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Ace of the Deep
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,140
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
You guys missed this part:

Quote:
...It's not clear just how much Australian domestic politics have skewed the reporting on the exercise's results....
Umm, will you take this part into account had the exercise said the JSF would have won by a mile?
Kazuaki Shimazaki II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 07:53 AM   #7
mrbeast
Ace of the Deep
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,236
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

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

:hmm:

Answer = Buy the Su35 instead!
__________________
mrbeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 07:58 AM   #8
XabbaRus
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,330
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0


Default

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
__________________
XabbaRus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-08, 08:05 AM   #9
Bill Nichols
Master of Defense
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,502
Downloads: 125
Uploads: 0
Default

For a different viewpoint, see this article:

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

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...fense_092208w/
__________________
My Dangerous Waters website:
Bill Nichols is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-08, 04:03 PM   #10
Takeda Shingen
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,643
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbuna
What exactly was this war game test.....Dowly v Hunter in IL2 :hmm:

No. If it were, Dowly would have somehow blown himself up with his own AIM-9 and Hunter, as I understand things, would have then crashed and burned on the runway while attempting to land afterward. No one would want to buy either plane.
Takeda Shingen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-08, 04:06 PM   #11
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 190,461
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbuna
What exactly was this war game test.....Dowly v Hunter in IL2 :hmm:

No. If it were, Dowly would have somehow blown himself up with his own AIM-9 and Hunter, as I understand things, would have then crashed and burned on the runway while attempting to land afterward. No one would want to buy either plane.
Ah!....so you've flown with them both online as well have you
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!

Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.