Skyhawks - another step forward

[h290master]

F35 is not that great just the US overhyping it and its abilities, they are even thinking of removing its external hardpoints permanantly and it can barely squeeze those gbu16s in the bomb bay and less range and payload capacity than the f16s and current aircraft in service, the uk for instance are looking at cancelling the f35s in favour for upgrading the harriers furthermore. In the case of superhornets well lets just say they wont have any real use in the raaf thus taking over the f111 airshow duties and would not fit nz's needs whilst the f16 did at the time as it provided more range than we needed and has quite a large payload capacity and has been combat proven, f18e/f is a naval aircraft and designed for aircraft carriers and as an interceptor whilst the f16 is landbased and designed for strike

[Grumble]

QUOTE (2fst4u @ Oct 13 2009, 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never seen an argument become so in-depth. There's some pretty good facts in this thread. But anyways, i agree we don't really need the strike capability that much. However I heard somewhere that NZ has one of the largest areas to defend and look after (if you included the pacific island nations and sheer size of the ocean that we patrol) and yet we have one of the smallest and least equipped navies. We would be far better off putting our resources into more (and better) naval vessels and maritime surveillance aircraft like the orions and even the new boeing that is being built

Exactly. We would be far better served by frigates and smaller-class vessels equipped with a surface strike / anti-air capability. Hell, even conventional SSKs wouldn't go amiss (though possibly too expensive...) Maritime surveillance platforms like the P3 are an asset as well.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Grumble @ Oct 19 2009, 03:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interestingly enough the phantoms are doing the job they ask them to do. The F35 is not well regarded, since they see it as mainly being positioned in the strike role, which contravenes their constitution in its current form. What's more, although final capabilities have yet to be established, they see the F35 as being inferior in a2a capability when put up against the upgraded versions of the Flanker it would be likely to encounter should they see action.

LMAO you are kidding right do you have any idea what the F35 is capable of? The F35 is a stealth fighter its Aim120s and Aim 9x(90deg off bore vs 67deg off bore r73) well outclass the latest Flankers also its design is similar to that of the F-16 its a flying swiss army knife as far as combat is concerned it can nail anything on the ground or in the air whats more the correct use of a stealth aircraft in a conflict is the painter for AAMs launched from other aircraft which is why the F35 plus Rhino = a deadly combination. To consider that Aussie is buying Rhinos only to sell them when the F35 arrives is an incorrect assumption because 1 F35 plus 5 Rhinos = 4 aim 120s plus 5 x 10 Aim120s + 2 Aim 9X=50 120s + 10 Aim 9x and in this situation the F35 uses none of his own missiles you can guarantee 50 upgraded sukhois would get nailed without knowing what hit them.

And heres the other key advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELETsvJZwvI

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (h290master @ Oct 19 2009, 06:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

F35 is not that great just the US overhyping it and its abilities, they are even thinking of removing its external hardpoints permanantly and it can barely squeeze those gbu16s in the bomb bay and less range and payload capacity than the f16s and current aircraft in service, the uk for instance are looking at cancelling the f35s in favour for upgrading the harriers furthermore. In the case of superhornets well lets just say they wont have any real use in the raaf thus taking over the f111 airshow duties and would not fit nz's needs whilst the f16 did at the time as it provided more range than we needed and has quite a large payload capacity and has been combat proven, f18e/f is a naval aircraft and designed for aircraft carriers and as an interceptor whilst the f16 is landbased and designed for strike

Although the Superhornet is a Naval aircraft it is no different to the F-16 in its use infact it is more useful since it can be setup as a Tanker as well as its other roles. Comparing the Block 2s to the F-16 the Block 2 has AESA radar so both pilot and WSO can independently use the radar and weapons at the same time. In other words you can lock an air target and launch a missile at it while your WSO launches a HARM at a search radar at the same time. The F-16 Block 60 also has an Aesa radar but overall the Rhino can carry more 7700kg vs 8050kg and has better range hi low hi range 550km vs 722km. Plus it has more hardpoints so whilst carrying LGBs you can also carry HARMS and AAMs whereas the F-16 less hardpoints so you're more limited to what you carry.

[Grumble]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Oct 13 2009, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMAO you are kidding right do you have any idea what the F35 is capable of? The F35 is a stealth fighter its Aim120s and Aim 9x(90deg off bore vs 67deg off bore r73) well outclass the latest Flankers also its design is similar to that of the F-16 its a flying swiss army knife as far as combat is concerned it can nail anything on the ground or in the air whats more the correct use of a stealth aircraft in a conflict is the painter for AAMs launched from other aircraft which is why the F35 plus Rhino = a deadly combination.

The F35 has a small FCS, albeit one a magnitude of order greater than that of the F22, from a front-on aspect. Side on, and especially from the rear, it's not that stealthy, and IS detectable by the upgraded radars of the flanker / PA class fleets that many Asian nations are currently modernizing with (well, it is predicted to be... not in-service yet). Those same Sukhois now have a very sophisticated data integration suite that allows them to do exactly what you talk about below... detect and fire on other aircraft from an angle. They have far better range, far superior t/w ratios, and a vastly superior payload.

QUOTE

To consider that Aussie is buying Rhinos only to sell them when the F35 arrives is an incorrect assumption because 1 F35 plus 5 Rhinos = 4 aim 120s plus 5 x 10 Aim120s + 2 Aim 9X=50 120s + 10 Aim 9x and in this situation the F35 uses none of his own missiles you can guarantee 50 upgraded sukhois would get nailed without knowing what hit them.[/quote]

Again, this is an unknown factor. I highly doubt that the F35 radar is capable of guiding 50 missiles to the targets simultaneously. Read through some of those links in my previous post and you'll see that the current state of missile tech also means that the F35 has to close to within the no escape zone of opposing off-frontal missile shots to launch and / or guide missiles to enemy aircraft. It then lacks the speed to make a withdrawal, AND in turning away exposes non-stealthy aspects to its opponents.

QUOTE

And heres the other key advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELETsvJZwvI[/quote]

Which makes it a nice surveillance platform. Albeit one with short-ish legs compared to Australias's size, as well as a single engine, which is not exactly an asset. That's without even mentioning its limited payload. There is a reason that many of the partners in the F35 program are having second thoughts...

ps... you do know that the link you posted is a manufacturer's promo video, right?

Grumble

Forum Addict

 

Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:15 pm

Posts: 163

Top

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Grumble @ Oct 18 2009, 07:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Setting up and maintaining any credible force of combat aircraft is probably not with the economic capabilities of NZ at present. If you want to do some reading on this take a look at some of the defense analysis here: http://www.ausairpower.net/

The F16s offered us were not equipped with current avionics, nor were they capable of using much of the weaponry currently deployed in the news you see today. From what I understand the upgrades required to bring them up to modern standards would have cost a significant amount of money.

Since we also lack infrastructure such as AWACS and air refueling, any combat aircraft purchased would serve as little more than a point interceptor, unless you want to use them for maritime patrol - something to which the F16 is not especially well suited. Combat deployment overseas would also be difficult, again due to the lack of the infrastructure required to support them.

As to the argument that lacking an air strike capability loses us respect in the eyes of our trading partners... er... no. Just no. We have caused some frustration to the Australians in our lack of willingness to spend more on defense, but I'm sure that they agree that we are better served by devoting what resources we *do* have to areas where the money buys a credible return. We could do with a better navy, a larger and better equipped army, and a more significant air defense capability, all of which would make a significant contribution to regional defense as well as serve on deployments overseas.

There is no point in purchasing obsolete military equipment.

I'd've expected the F-16s to be upgraded in a similar manner to what the Kahu recieved as that included F-16 radar plus it would've got penguim missiles to allow better maritime strike capability if they got them eventhough they were older model F-16s they still had good airframes and would have lasted and been much cheaper than buying new top of the line aircraft like the Superhornet.(it was a bargain) As for AWACs they could probably use an over the horizon radar instead which is a much more permanent solution than AWACs tanker is also a question but then you have to consider how far out from NZ you would require the aircraft to strike compared to the distance the A4s were used? Overseas deployment could be done as part of a coalition force then you would get away with less by deploying the aircraft as alot of other countrys use F-16s like the US and its not uncommon to use other countrys facilitys on operations. When talking diplomacy you do lose respect in the eyes of other Nations if you don't have a big stick and thats a fact since the stone age.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Grumble @ Oct 19 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The F35 has a small FCS, albeit one a magnitude of order greater than that of the F22, from a front-on aspect. Side on, and especially from the rear, it's not that stealthy, and IS detectable by the upgraded radars of the flanker / PA class fleets that many Asian nations are currently modernizing with (well, it is predicted to be... not in-service yet). Those same Sukhois now have a very sophisticated data integration suite that allows them to do exactly what you talk about below... detect and fire on other aircraft from an angle. They have far better range, far superior t/w ratios, and a vastly superior payload.



Again, this is an unknown factor. I highly doubt that the F35 radar is capable of guiding 50 missiles to the targets simultaneously. Read through some of those links in my previous post and you'll see that the current state of missile tech also means that the F35 has to close to within the no escape zone of opposing off-frontal missile shots to launch and / or guide missiles to enemy aircraft. It then lacks the speed to make a withdrawal, AND in turning away exposes non-stealthy aspects to its opponents.



Which makes it a nice surveillance platform. Albeit one with short-ish legs compared to Australias's size, as well as a single engine, which is not exactly an asset. That's without even mentioning its limited payload. There is a reason that many of the partners in the F35 program are having second thoughts...

ps... you do know that the link you posted is a manufacturer's promo video, right?

In a situation like that I would not expect the F35 to launch any missiles and it could most likely guide probably 6 missiles at once in TWS considering the F-16 can do just that so its probably capable of more. Ideally Aussie should get F22s which is much better aircraft and more suited to that type of scenario but thats how the US has been using them in mock airbattles with just a few stealth aircraft and a small group of Superhornets carrying missiles. Eventhough the Sukhois aircraft appear to be quite superior on paper IRL they have lost virtually every engagement they've ever been used in(particularly the export aircraft and missiles) the only aircraft with a worse track record is the Mig29. Also with the Aim 120D with a range of 130+ miles compared to the R77M1 Adder 108 miles the SU37 no longer has the edge over the previous versions of the Aim 120(C5, C7). The F35 also has the best SA since the F22 and that is far better than the datalink for the SU37 because of the pilots helmet shows him everything.

[madkudu]

QUOTE

I've never seen an argument become so in-depth[/quote]
^I agree

lol and heres my personal opinion :
Why dont we (somehow) find a huge source of oil off the coast of NZ(we own a huge chunk of ocean so my bets on that theres a huge 'reservoir' of oil somewhere under there, we already have proof we have some oil around this end of the world off the coast of New Plymouth) so we can be a super oil rich country like Norway who has roughly the same population and country size as NZ and pumps (literally) US$1.8 billion a week into the Norwegian economy (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...6_norway20.html) from North sea oil.
Right, After we find this black gold we could actually afford to buy the airforce planes and 'infrastructure' we need to/ want to and wont have to worry about "expensive upgrades to old planes" or "finding the cheapest plane to suit NZ that might actually have enough force to take out invading forces get totally crushed!" Just like Norway who are rapidly expanding and replacing there airforce fleet with brand new planes e.g Norwegian Airforce has in their current inventory: 36 Helicopters( not including the 14 new NH90's to be delivered (NZ has ordered 8 of these which is really quite a big leap for NZ)), 3 Dassault Falcon 20's for electronic warfare, 2 new in service C-130J-30's with something like 4 more new ones to come, 6 P-3 Orions(just like NZ!), and then to top it off 57 F-16 Fighting Falcons! and I think the Govt is looking for another alternative fighter aircraft.
You never know we could just be so lucky as to have this happen and get an airforce as cool as this!

Please, this 'suggestion' or 'possibility' or 'impossibility' is just a little bright spark in the otherwise VERY SERIOUS discussion on what we are going to do with the Royal New Zealand Air Force and its development! K?

P.S sorry if im a little more "norwegian' proud than 'nz' proud. And also sorry if this is so much off topic and stupid that...well...you dont care
Jimmy

[SUBS17]

My whole reason is the sky is just to dam quiet we need some jets up there to make some noise or if its RNZAF about 50ft will do thats high enough.
Yes there is oil there lots of it but the Government won't make much it'll be the oil companys who make the profits there.

[madkudu]

QUOTE

Yes there is oil there lots of it but the Government won't make much it'll be the oil companys who make the profits there[/quote]

Yes Private companies do get the oil profits, but why cant we have a state owned oil company, the biggest oil company in Norway is state owned

QUOTE

"almost all the revenues from the government-owned oil company, Statoil, be placed in an investment fund"[/quote], and even if the nz govt couldnt get its own oil company going, the govt owns the resource (all resources in nz is owned by right by the govt) and the private company will have to buy the right to pump out oil, and that can be pretty expensive for the company and will bring some money into our economy or(more on topic) Air Force

madkudu

Member

 

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:43 am

Posts: 127

Location: Leigh

Top