It looks like the age of any possible US air dominance is coming to an end. The US has committed to the F-35 until 2070 as a replacement for many different types of aircraft from the A-10 up. They have no backup plans or substitutes.
A submission here from Lt.Col Anker Sorensen (submition 35) To the Australian parliament on the purchase of the F-35. Well worth reading.
I just downloaded a program to copy and paste PDF and will post the full submission if that is OK mod.
…..
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
18 February 2016
Joint Strike Fighter Inquiry
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Chairman and Committee Members,
AUSTRALIA’S TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
I’m a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety
Armed Forces Denmark.
In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational
requirements for new fighter aircraft.
In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England.
To make the simulations as realistic a as possible, we participated with operational pilots.
On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries.
We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better.
It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25
nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better
Joint Strike Fighter
Submission 35
Text produced by an Evaluation Version of the PDF Copy Paste software.
Please buy full version. http://www.PDFCopyPaste.com
In design and in practice the A-10 was and is superb for CAS.
I understand from the following link that the F-35 is causing the future scrapping of A-10 squadrons year-by-year, not because the F-35 is superior to the A-10 for CAS -it is actually next to useless- but because it would deprive the F-35 of maintenance support personnel.
There are apparently not enough maintenance mechanics to support both the F-35 and the A-10, so the A-10 must go. Not surprising given the extra maintenace required for any stealth aircraft and especially for the F-35 Lemonjet hangar queen.
It’s a calamitous procurement strategy – single source, flawed design, etc. US defence procurement is driven by ‘financial planning’. The notion that throwing money at R&D will deliver results is idiotic. The Russians use ‘technology planning’ to deliver platforms with the objective of superior performance and/or to achieve a military objective. The US to do ‘technology planning’. There is so much wrong with the JSF…it might fly and do things but its support and logistics will be a nightmare from the articles I have read.
This is very interesting. I had wondered what happened to MIG. They sort of disappeared from the scene a while back and then it was all up to Sukhoi.
Peter AU, why oh why is Australia government taking up something as unlucky as F35 when it could purchase Sukhois or MIGs for substantially less AND get superior platform with lower running costs? They ought to run a series of realistic comparative fly-off exercises (including maintenance, repairs and turnaround) to find the best aircraft for their purposes (the defense of the Australian mainland and its nearby islands.
There are no adversaries of Australia that would need modern fighter jets to defend against now and who would want to invade Australia anyway ? Except of course migrants from Vietnam etc.
China is the only nation big enough in the region to be a potential threat BUT as all the raw materials that China needs can be purchased from Africa and Russia , as well as Australia the threat from China is zero.
All the shiny US F35’s would be are expensive toys for the boys to play with.
Australia is unlikely to buy anything military from Russia -and certainly not fighter jets.
Nor would any other major NATO country.
Handmaidens to the barbarian you see, all of them. They do as they are told. Persuaders are under the table carrots and a big stick.
Dave says the buildup of ZATO in Anbar area is going to lead soon to something big, since they have clearly stated in their words & actions that their position of Assad going one way or another is not negotiable.
Of the 450 troops heading to Anbar province within six to eight weeks, less than 100 will be advisers who will assist Iraqi commanders for an eventual counter-attack in Ramadi, officials said. The remainder of the contingent will handle logistics and provide security for fellow troops.
Canada has no F-16s; you mean F-18 -or CF-18 as they are known in Canada. One can only hope that with a new government that they will not buy the F-35 Lemonjet. I have little hope that anything will change. They’d do better to buy coastguard vessels, long range surveillance drones for the North and maritime patrol and the SU-35 but seeing as they are NATO, suffer from an advanced case of russophobia and grovel before the Hegemon the SU-35 is uunthinkable. The F-18 successor, the Super Hornet, would be an acceptable compromise as a single Canada Goose would not down destroy it as it would the F-35 -assuming the latter is not grounded.
This American citizen congratulates the Syrian forces for liberating Palmyra from the ISIS death cult, and thanks the Russian government, military and people for helping the Syrians in their hours of desperate needs.
I saw a report (I think on RT) that western governments have been mostly quiet about the liberation of Palmyra, unlike the hand-wringing that accompanied it’s downfall. These agencies are real embarrassments, quite unlike those two bright points of light – Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov, who illumine these dark times with hope.
There also was a fake fly-off between Lockheed and Northrop leading to the selection of Lockheed’s YF-22. At the time I was in regular correspondence with a US fighter pilot. He gave a favorable opinion of the Lockheed plane; but preferred it had the Northrup plane won the competition.
The correspondence then turned to how many F-22s should be made. He felt that about 320 was the right number. His thinking was the superiority of the F-22 over all known combat aircraft was so great that there would be less need for the F-35. The Air Force could continue to acquire new F-16s and F-15s -with updates to avionics, armaments and electronics as they develop- which could operate safely in areas that were cleared of extreme threats from the most advanced aircraft available to America’s adversaries.
But the F-22 was not going to be made available to foreign air forces (although now it is being made available to both Israel and Japan); and the F-15s/16s were products of McDonnell Douglas (later to be acquired by Boeing). Clearly, Lockheed’s lobbyists were more effective than those of Boeing. So, we have the F-35, numbering in the thousands, and less than 200 F-22s.
The F-35 will end up being used as a bomber in low threat environments. In this role, it will be adequate. As long as the United States doesn’t go to war against Russia+China, the F-35 will have an effective and useful service life.
As I try to comprehend it, I don’t think that the United States places a very high priority on air-to-air interdiction and combat. The emphasis is on long range bombing capabilities for manned aircraft, and on drones -one way “suicidal” drones at that- to clear the air space above the target area of both missiles and aircraft.
Some points:
“F-35 will end up being used as a bomber in low threat environments”
The f-15, F-16 and F-18 are much, much cheaper to buy and maintain, far less fragile and more reliable. Proven too.
“The emphasis is on long range bombing capabilities for manned aircraft”
Will the F-35 have a non-stealthy tanker chaperone attached to it?
“As long as the United States doesn’t go to war against Russia+China, the F-35 will have an effective and useful service life”
It can be argued that the USA is currently in a war against Russia and China, mostly propaganda and its NATO border sabre-rattling plus border skirmishes e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, China Sea. The ramping up towards war and the risk of accidental/inadvertant conflict ignition is undeniable.
An effective service life depends on airframe longevity, bugs removed, software completed -and software bugs removed and cessation of groundings. All these are in doubt currently, not to mention cost.
It looks like the age of any possible US air dominance is coming to an end. The US has committed to the F-35 until 2070 as a replacement for many different types of aircraft from the A-10 up. They have no backup plans or substitutes.
A submission here from Lt.Col Anker Sorensen (submition 35) To the Australian parliament on the purchase of the F-35. Well worth reading.
Submission 35 at this link http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions
A direct link to the submission here (PDF) http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6bea818e-e2a7-4ad3-9c0e-109348f93be9&subId=409097
I just downloaded a program to copy and paste PDF and will post the full submission if that is OK mod.
…..
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
18 February 2016
Joint Strike Fighter Inquiry
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Chairman and Committee Members,
AUSTRALIA’S TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
I’m a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety
Armed Forces Denmark.
In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational
requirements for new fighter aircraft.
In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England.
To make the simulations as realistic a as possible, we participated with operational pilots.
On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries.
We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better.
It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25
nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better
Joint Strike Fighter
Submission 35
Text produced by an Evaluation Version of the PDF Copy Paste software.
Please buy full version. http://www.PDFCopyPaste.com
I thought I had deleted the last bit that advertises the PDF copy paste software. Guess I will have to check what bugs I downloaded with it.
In design and in practice the A-10 was and is superb for CAS.
I understand from the following link that the F-35 is causing the future scrapping of A-10 squadrons year-by-year, not because the F-35 is superior to the A-10 for CAS -it is actually next to useless- but because it would deprive the F-35 of maintenance support personnel.
There are apparently not enough maintenance mechanics to support both the F-35 and the A-10, so the A-10 must go. Not surprising given the extra maintenace required for any stealth aircraft and especially for the F-35 Lemonjet hangar queen.
http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/24/us-air-force-retiring-a10-anyway/
It’s a calamitous procurement strategy – single source, flawed design, etc. US defence procurement is driven by ‘financial planning’. The notion that throwing money at R&D will deliver results is idiotic. The Russians use ‘technology planning’ to deliver platforms with the objective of superior performance and/or to achieve a military objective. The US to do ‘technology planning’. There is so much wrong with the JSF…it might fly and do things but its support and logistics will be a nightmare from the articles I have read.
This is very interesting. I had wondered what happened to MIG. They sort of disappeared from the scene a while back and then it was all up to Sukhoi.
Peter AU, why oh why is Australia government taking up something as unlucky as F35 when it could purchase Sukhois or MIGs for substantially less AND get superior platform with lower running costs? They ought to run a series of realistic comparative fly-off exercises (including maintenance, repairs and turnaround) to find the best aircraft for their purposes (the defense of the Australian mainland and its nearby islands.
Siotu
There are no adversaries of Australia that would need modern fighter jets to defend against now and who would want to invade Australia anyway ? Except of course migrants from Vietnam etc.
China is the only nation big enough in the region to be a potential threat BUT as all the raw materials that China needs can be purchased from Africa and Russia , as well as Australia the threat from China is zero.
All the shiny US F35’s would be are expensive toys for the boys to play with.
You forget the accelerating growth of the Indonesian economy and a population of over 200m. Indonesia is starting to buy Russian jets (SU-35).
Indonesian Defense Analyst Stresses Risk of Proxy War with Australia over Masela Gas Block
http://nsnbc.me/2016/03/16/indonesian-defense-analyst-stresses-risk-of-proxy-war-with-australia-over-masela-gas-block/
Indonesia’s AF Expresses Continued Interest in SU-35s
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indonesias-air-force-adds-more-flankers-03691/
Australia is unlikely to buy anything military from Russia -and certainly not fighter jets.
Nor would any other major NATO country.
Handmaidens to the barbarian you see, all of them. They do as they are told. Persuaders are under the table carrots and a big stick.
Five eyes. The US own this place. Politicians, intelligence services, and perhaps military, their first loyalty seems to be to the US.
Dave says the buildup of ZATO in Anbar area is going to lead soon to something big, since they have clearly stated in their words & actions that their position of Assad going one way or another is not negotiable.
Reminder what’s going on there Iraq:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/new-us-military-team-to-focus-on-recapturing-ramadi—–.aspx?pageID=238&nID=83808&NewsCatID=352
President Barack Obama is sending 450 additional US troops to help Iraqi forces seize back control of the western city of Ramadi from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) jihadists.
Of the 450 troops heading to Anbar province within six to eight weeks, less than 100 will be advisers who will assist Iraqi commanders for an eventual counter-attack in Ramadi, officials said. The remainder of the contingent will handle logistics and provide security for fellow troops.
Sunday March 27
Current Economic Collapse News Brief – Episode 928
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LXJAqVWPf4
Canada is looking to replace its aging F 16s . Any chance? No I guess not as Canada is a U.S.-Central bankers stool pigeon….
Canada has no F-16s; you mean F-18 -or CF-18 as they are known in Canada. One can only hope that with a new government that they will not buy the F-35 Lemonjet. I have little hope that anything will change. They’d do better to buy coastguard vessels, long range surveillance drones for the North and maritime patrol and the SU-35 but seeing as they are NATO, suffer from an advanced case of russophobia and grovel before the Hegemon the SU-35 is uunthinkable. The F-18 successor, the Super Hornet, would be an acceptable compromise as a single Canada Goose would not down destroy it as it would the F-35 -assuming the latter is not grounded.
This American citizen congratulates the Syrian forces for liberating Palmyra from the ISIS death cult, and thanks the Russian government, military and people for helping the Syrians in their hours of desperate needs.
I saw a report (I think on RT) that western governments have been mostly quiet about the liberation of Palmyra, unlike the hand-wringing that accompanied it’s downfall. These agencies are real embarrassments, quite unlike those two bright points of light – Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov, who illumine these dark times with hope.
God bless both of them.
There also was a fake fly-off between Lockheed and Northrop leading to the selection of Lockheed’s YF-22. At the time I was in regular correspondence with a US fighter pilot. He gave a favorable opinion of the Lockheed plane; but preferred it had the Northrup plane won the competition.
The correspondence then turned to how many F-22s should be made. He felt that about 320 was the right number. His thinking was the superiority of the F-22 over all known combat aircraft was so great that there would be less need for the F-35. The Air Force could continue to acquire new F-16s and F-15s -with updates to avionics, armaments and electronics as they develop- which could operate safely in areas that were cleared of extreme threats from the most advanced aircraft available to America’s adversaries.
But the F-22 was not going to be made available to foreign air forces (although now it is being made available to both Israel and Japan); and the F-15s/16s were products of McDonnell Douglas (later to be acquired by Boeing). Clearly, Lockheed’s lobbyists were more effective than those of Boeing. So, we have the F-35, numbering in the thousands, and less than 200 F-22s.
The F-35 will end up being used as a bomber in low threat environments. In this role, it will be adequate. As long as the United States doesn’t go to war against Russia+China, the F-35 will have an effective and useful service life.
As I try to comprehend it, I don’t think that the United States places a very high priority on air-to-air interdiction and combat. The emphasis is on long range bombing capabilities for manned aircraft, and on drones -one way “suicidal” drones at that- to clear the air space above the target area of both missiles and aircraft.
Some points:
“F-35 will end up being used as a bomber in low threat environments”
The f-15, F-16 and F-18 are much, much cheaper to buy and maintain, far less fragile and more reliable. Proven too.
“The emphasis is on long range bombing capabilities for manned aircraft”
Will the F-35 have a non-stealthy tanker chaperone attached to it?
“As long as the United States doesn’t go to war against Russia+China, the F-35 will have an effective and useful service life”
It can be argued that the USA is currently in a war against Russia and China, mostly propaganda and its NATO border sabre-rattling plus border skirmishes e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, China Sea. The ramping up towards war and the risk of accidental/inadvertant conflict ignition is undeniable.
An effective service life depends on airframe longevity, bugs removed, software completed -and software bugs removed and cessation of groundings. All these are in doubt currently, not to mention cost.
“16s were products of McDonnell Douglas”
Make that General Dynamics…