Super Hornet

[gunnut]

Thank you sir. That was very informative. :)

[wabpilot]

Wabpilot and others, check out this article written by a former soviet fighter pilot.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030907-1.html

Just wondering if you think he knows what he's talking about or if he's full of it.

He's full of it. Sounds like sales puffery that is not backed up by a lot of knowledge, even less analysis and no testing. Some points he ignores:

1. Link 16. The F-18 has it and the F-35 will. (So to the Rafale, Typhoon, later F-15s, F-16s and J-39s.) So, he claims that the Su-30s are somehow superior to the F-18 because they have a Russian data link. Well the F-18 and other western types have a better data link. In truth, advantage west.

2. JORN can spot the F-35 at great distances. Yes, but not with enough accuracy to target it. This is the critical issue. Also, JORN loses stealthy types inside its long range detection zone yet outside its inner range. So, the stealthy type disappears again. Big problem for the defenders. Advantage west.

3. IR detection by the Su-27 family is claimed to be superior. According to the author, Russian IR detection will spot the F-35, from behind, at about 60 nautical miles. Big deal. Our IRST picks the Sukhois up at 100 nm. Advantage west.

4. Russian multiple layered air defense systems can neutralize the advantages of the F-18F and F-35. Other than a few places in Russia, there are no mulitple layered Russian air defense systems. And, those systems are quite subject to degredation by JSOWs. Advantage, a toss up if you have the money to spend, otherwise advantage west.

5. The Sukhois will be able to detect AWACS types and assuming that AWACS operate with fighters, the Sukhois will be able to sector search at a greater range than the F-35 or F-18F. True enough, except the author ignores the elephant in the room. The AWACS. It can see farther than the Sukhoi and with Link 16 can direct F-35s or F-18s to a tactically advantageous firing position without the western type even lighting off its radar until it's time to lock and launch. Better mount your IRST on a swivel, Ivan. Big advantage west.

[Officer of Engineers]

The military is the same. If it's an otherwise useful type, the navy or air force will spend a lot of money to keep it flying. With the F-18, we were able to roughly double the available airframes without procuring a single one. Congress looks at procurement numbers.

Commander,

Did you know these procurement tricks during or after your service?

[gunnut]

Wabpilot and others, check out this article written by a former soviet fighter pilot.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030907-1.html

Just wondering if you think he knows what he's talking about or if he's full of it.

Also, before your post, I've never heard that the F-35 could carry more than 2 AMRAAMs internally. I still haven't found a website that says otherwise.

Wow this guy sure has a hard on for the Flanker and the F-111.

I love how he classifies the Rafale and the Typhoon as "low capability" fighters.

[wabpilot]

Commander,

Did you know these procurement tricks during or after your service?

Colonel, I was a squadron maintenance officer, then had an AIMD aboard ship and finished my career with a land based maintenance department. If I had stayed in, I would probably have gotten a NARF. My strength was in the direction of maintenance rather than operations. So, that's where I spent most of my time. Of course a lot of what goes on there is not as highly classified, so it's easier to write about too. The operational side tends to be more classified and my involvement there leaves me a lot less room to write without doing a lot of looking for open sources.

[BenRoethig]

What stops the RAAF from getting some new Terminators (Su-35) or Super Flankers? Those can be configured for ground attack. They're also cheap both on the price tag and maintenance. And they come with no strings attached.

1. The RCS on the gen 4 flanker is about the size of Australia.

2. Russian stuff can be unreliable and availability of spares require good relations with Russia.

3. It also requires buying Russian weapons. The Super Hornet, Strike Eagle, Typhoon, and Rafale are able to use what the Aussies already have.

[BenRoethig]

The Sidewinder hasn't qualified for the internal bay yet. However, we should be able to resolve the technical issues since we did that with the Raptor carrying Sidewinders internally.

The problem is the Sidewinder's target seeker has to see the target first. It won't see anything if it stays inside the weapon bay

Found a great site with very good pictures.

Looking at this picture, maybe there won't be more internal A2A missiles on the F-35, at least not Slammers. Maybe there will be an adaptor to fit 2 Sidewinders in place of that 2000 lb bomb. The bay just doesn't look long enough.

https://www.teamjsf.com/jsf/data.nsf/splash?readform

The AMRAAM is shorter than the the 2000lbs JDAM, which means it will definitely fit in the F-35A/C's weapons bay in place of a bomb. The F-35B's bays are 14 inches shorter are may only be able to take a JDAM on the door pylon.

[gunnut]

The AMRAAM is shorter than the the 2000lbs JDAM, which means it will definitely fit in the F-35A/C's weapons bay in place of a bomb. The F-35B's bays are 14 inches shorter are may only be able to take a JDAM on the door pylon.

I saw a better picture of the bomb bay and yes, the 2000 lb bomb is definitely longer than Slammer. The first picture I saw was at a sharp angle and distorted the distance.

The F-22 can carry a single 1000 lb bomb in place of 2 Slammers. By that logic, the F-35 should be able to carry at least 2 missiles in place of a single 2000 lb bomb. If that's the case, than the F-35 should be able to carry 6 missiles internally on a2a missions.

[Adux]

1. The RCS on the gen 4 flanker is about the size of Australia.

2. Russian stuff can be unreliable and availability of spares require good relations with Russia.

3. It also requires buying Russian weapons. The Super Hornet, Strike Eagle, Typhoon, and Rafale are able to use what the Aussies already have.

Ben,

Size of Australia is 5m2.

SU-30MKI is no push-over for a Shornet E/F or Eurofighter!!!! And it was not even gone through its upgrade yet.

[gunnut]

Ben,

Size of Australia is 5m2.

That's only if you look from the top. Australia is quite stealthy if you look from the side or the front.

[Adux]

That's only if you look from the top. Australia is quite stealthy if you look from the side or the front.

[BenRoethig]

Ben,

Size of Australia is 5m2.

SU-30MKI is no push-over for a Shornet E/F or Eurofighter!!!! And it was not even gone through its upgrade yet.

It's a match for the Gen 4.5 aircraft for sure.

[BenRoethig]

I saw a better picture of the bomb bay and yes, the 2000 lb bomb is definitely longer than Slammer. The first picture I saw was at a sharp angle and distorted the distance.

The F-22 can carry a single 1000 lb bomb in place of 2 Slammers. By that logic, the F-35 should be able to carry at least 2 missiles in place of a single 2000 lb bomb. If that's the case, than the F-35 should be able to carry 6 missiles internally on a2a missions.

That depends. The main bays on the raptor are designed for six AMRAAMS. The carriage of the GBU-32 is an advantageous side effect. The JSF bays, however are designed around the contours of a GBU-31 JDAM with has a Diameter of 25 inches. The wingspan of a AIM-120C/D is 17.5. There may not be enough lateral space for two AMRAAMS.

[gunnut]

That depends. The main bays on the raptor are designed for six AMRAAMS. The carriage of the GBU-32 is an advantageous side effect. The JSF bays, however are designed around the contours of a GBU-31 JDAM with has a Diameter of 25 inches. The wingspan of a AIM-120C/D is 17.5. There may not be enough lateral space for two AMRAAMS.

Stagger them with a pylon?

Well, at least we know the F-35 can take 1 additional AMRAAM per bay. Maybe an internal fuel tank with a missile under it to maximize the space usage. That way the F-35 can have longer range and still remain stealthy.

[gunnut]

So I was bored and reading this website:

Air Power Australia

I noticed something very interesting. This guy has a hard on for the Sukhois and the F-111, but very low opinions on the F-18 and the F-35. He argues the Sukhois can down F-18 and F-35 with minimal effort, therefore the choice to retire F-111 and replace them with F-18 and F-35 was a blunder. Yet he never does a comparison between the A2A capabilities of F-111 vs. the Flanker!

All the charts are either A2A abilities between Flanker and F-18/F-35, showing how superior the Flanker is, or the long range strike abilities of the F-111 and F-18/F-35, showing how superior the F-111 is.

I thought that was hilarious. I hope no one takes this guy seriously. :))